Prayer and power [Archive] - Page 3

RandFan

30th July 2006, 04:26 PM

Yes, I'm not arguing that point. My take on the thread is that you were making the claim it is irrational to believe in prayer. No, clearly not. I have been very careful to be very precise. Though I have stated my opinion that prayer is irrational I have focused on the miracle aspect of prayer.

Apparently, you are willing to grant the non-supernatural beneficial effects of prayer. Seems to me that if prayer works - whether because God intervenes or for purely non-supernatural reasons - then it's rational to believe in it. I think that it is irrational. If I believe that putting mayonnaise on my elbow is the reason I feel good, it might work (coincidentally) but it is not rational. But I'm perfectly happy to let those who believe that putting mayonnaise on their elbow will make them feel better, believe that it is rational. It's not but that is not the subject of this discussion.

Since no one actually believes that prayer always works ... I don't think you can ascibe rational/irrational to beliefs based on anything other than the truth/falsity of the belief. I don't quite follow your logic. In any event, believing that an act (prayer) can influence unrelated events is by definition irrational. There really is no getting around that fact.

For most people, they way they conceive of god intervening - i.e. that God might heal by granting their loved ones a spontanious remission of cancer but that he will never help them regrow and amputated limb - is an entirely rational belief in terms of what they pray for and what they expect to receive. We'll, you certainly can believe that but there is no basis for this belief. The notion that an unrelated act can influence events is not rational.

Sometimes, a spontaneous remission occur and their faith in God is reinforced.And when people knock on wood and their beliefs are confirmed it reinforces their belief in that superstition.

Sometimes, their loved one dies, and they find comfort in their faith. In both those cases, prayer has been successful - it has "worked" for those people. Thus, it's entirely rational for them to believe in prayer. Based on what theory? Your argument is a non-sequitur. It doesn't follow that simply because their actions make them feel good it is rational.

Why or how prayer works is irrevelant for deciding whether or not it does work. Why they believe it works is irrelevant to the rationality of the belief. By your logic, why or how a four-leaf clover works is irrelevant for deciding whether a four leaf clover works. By your logic, why a person believes a four-leaf clover works is irrelevant to the rationality of the belief. I'm sorry but that is spurious logic.

I don't think she's insisting on that strawman. You are free to believe what you want. Please don't make the strawman.

I think we both feel that someone who believes that God answers some prayers sometimes is entirely rational to beleive that.Based on what theory? I have yet to hear a single argument that demonstrates that such a belief is rational.

Look at it this way - it's as good an explanation as any regarding why some people experience spontaneous remissions. And if a person relies on a horseshoe?
And if a person relies on a four-leaf clover?
And if a person relies on any other superstitious belief?

Are those as good an explanation as any? Wouldn't chance be a better an more rational explanation?

Science doesn't know why sometimes such things happen, only that they occasionally do. Further, if there's any truth to the idea that one factor in such remissions is the individual's personal belief that it's possible, it becomes not only rational, but advantageous to hold that belief. So, if I believe that sacrificing a virgin will bring rain and sometimes such things happen then it is not only rational but advantageous to hold that belief?

slingblade

30th July 2006, 05:03 PM

I'm sorry, this is too terse for me to understand. But if I've misunderstood your position, I apologise.

Okay, sorry.

Apparently, the Bible contains promises, made by God/Christ, that state whatever you pray for, you'll receive from God. Some of these verses contain conditions, such as "in Christ's name" or "believing," but all of them promise that whatever is asked for, is granted.

I maintain that my personal experience shows these promises are not kept. Even when the conditions are met, they are not kept. People who pray do not always get what they ask for, nor do they often get what they ask for.

There. I said "always," or rather, "not always." But I said it.
Now, should they always get what they ask for? The promises say they will. I'm not talking about practicality here, or necessity, or fairness, or feasibility. I'm saying that the promises say whatever you ask for, provided the conditions are met, you'll receive.

And I'm asking: why does that not seem to be true? It should be true: it was promised. Maybe the conditions weren't properly met after all, though, because that is a requirement, right? But how are you to know, except by the fact that you don't get what you asked for? What if you never get whatever it is you asked for, from material thing to emotional state? What if all you asked for was comfort from God (not from other people doing his will, but God, himself), and you didn't get any? Why continue to be a believer, since it is obvious you are not pleasing to God, and can't even manage to muster enough belief to get a simple prayer granted? Isn't the fact that your prayers go unanswered enough proof that you actually don't believe in God, even though you apparently thought you did?

It seems that when most prayers are answered/granted, the answer could be explained by other things. Impossible prayers (impossible for humans, but not for a god) never seem to get the desired response.

God is, supposedly, a god. Not a person: a god. If a god makes promises, it is shameful for the god to renege. I don't want to worship, can't worship, a god who can't keep his own promises, not even one time.

So that's why I am both saying and not saying "always." The bible tells me it should be always, but I'd be happy if one--just one--amputee prayed for his leg to grow back, and I could watch it grow back right before my eyes.

Just one.

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 04:48 AM

Gene, just so in future you don't make the same mistake, a little information. A "sock puppet" is an extra account set up by an existing forum member, used to post in support of the existing member's arguments, pretending to be a separate individual. It is not a person who agrees with another.

If you don't know what a term means, either

1) don't use it at all or, better,
2) look it up before using it.

I wish I had a sock puppet. Or several. :(

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:01 AM

Regarding superstition...

I think we can agree that, by definition, superstition is irrational.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

Here's a quote culled from the above link...

"The Roman Catholic Church considers superstition to be sinful in the sense that it denotes a lack of trust in the divine providence of God and, as such, is a violation of the first of the Ten Commandments."

Now. You can insist that the Church is full of it, and fails to recognize that prayer is in fact a superstition. But examine the caveat: "a lack of trust in the divine providence of God".

This is what I mean when I say that prayer is not *necessarily* superstitious, though it can be and perhaps often is. If you pray and put your trust in God, you are not being superstitious, for you are open to any and all results, either readily apparent or not easily discernible.

I see that many people here are not interested in a nuanced approach to prayer, or a complete understanding of the totality of what Christian prayer is all about, and thus this post will come across as meaningless to many. :)

The important thing is...the ability to label other people. Yeah! That'll show 'em! :)

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:08 AM

Maybe I would say (she weaseled expertly ;)) that prayer is at present a superstition, until and unless (or if and only if?) there is evidence prayer functions in a definable and observable way.

But prayer does function in a definable and observable way. You've never seen two or three gathered in His Name, praying together?

The earth was "factually" flat, in a sense, though not in actuality flat, at a certain point in history. That we now know it is not flat makes that belief...well, not a superstition, but definitely not a fact. Those who hold the belief that the earth is flat, in spite of evidence to the contrary, are irrational, yes?

I'd say that such people are relatively right, and objectively wrong. The belief (I wouldn't call it irrational personally, but I'll give it to you for the moment) is irrational, but I don't think the people are.

Can we, ought we, hold prayer as a superstition until and unless?
Or is the concept valid, but under another name? If it isn't superstition, and it isn't fact, what is it, and are we rational if we believe something that hasn't yet, but could some day be, proven as fact?

I think that prayer is prayer, and the key is the understanding of the person/people engaged in the praying. If your understanding of what they are doing is different from their understanding of what they are doing, then you're not understanding each other, and it's a shame that labels of irrational irrational irrational have to follow from that.

I'll give you that some praying can be irrational...and I'll say that the *understanding* behind such prayers is the reason for that.

I'd have to go, tentatively, with: we are not irrational to hold the possibility of prayer, but we may be irrational to hold it as a fact without proof, or in the face of "negative proof." i.e. I've done this over and over and over, and nothing ever happens that I can see. If I can't see it, is it real, or does it even matter?

You're talking about the results of prayer. I think that's an entirely different thing from the exercise of prayer. I've already said many times that singular expectations as necessary results of prayer goes against the Christian understanding of prayer. In fact, I'd call *that* superstitious, as it doesn't put trust in God's will but in our own will (this follows from the Catholic Church's understanding of superstition, with which you probably don't agree).

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:12 AM

The problem with that definition is that there are many things for which there is little or no evidence that we don't classify as "superstition" or "irrational." Some would take offense if you insisted that, for example, the opinion that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is an irrational belief.

Or intelligent life on this planet!

I agree, it would be irrational to hold the possibility of prayer as fact. It is clearly not fact.

When you say possibility of prayer do you mean...well, you tell me!

If you believed that something should work every time, but when you tried it repeatedly it never worked (or worked only as much as chance would dictate), your continued belief might be irrational. But believers in prayer don't tend to expect it to work every time.

I disagree with this. I say that believers in prayer believe that the exercise of prayer inherently works, in and of itself, and completely independent of specific results. They also believe that all prayers are answered, but in manifold ways, many/most of which have nothing to do with the things that we'd agree to be "evidence".

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:15 AM

It is my opinion that all prayer is irrational. However that is not now nor has that ever been the point of this discusion and I'm not trying to debate that point. My argument is and has been that any prayer with the expectation of influencing the outcome of events is, by definition, irrational.

Rand, I actually agree with your argument! It's your opinion that I disagree with...but as you say, that isn't the point of this discussion! :)

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:20 AM

There are many such things, but they don't all fall under the heading of "wishful thinking." Prayer does. I think that makes a difference.

I think that *any belief* can be placed under the heading of wishful thinking.

I also think it makes a difference if you're talking about something we have enough evidence to suspect might exist, but know we simply lack the science to discover.

Yeah, like God. :p

It's not so rational to say they abducted you and put you back in bed, and yet no one else saw them, but it could still be possible. Just not probable.

It might be irrational to expect most people to take you seriously when you say such a thing, but I don't think there is anything rational or irrational on simply saying something. The key being *expectations*, right? Sticking with a point that I think we can come to some agreement on.

Prayer's a hard one because it is wishful thinking, and because it isn't falsifiable. There's no real way to prove your prayer wasn't answered with a "no."

I think some would disagree with you on this, but I'm not one of them. :)

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:32 AM

No. That is not correct. A belief that there is intelligent life outside of the solar system is based on evidence, logic and inference.

Hey, you know what? God also falls under the category of "intelligent life outside of the solar system". Take that fiend!

And you have done it again. By this logic there is no such thing as phobias. Demons could be living under your bed. The government might be out to get you so get worried.

Demons *might* be living under my bed (I personally think there's one sleeping in your bed RandFan arf arf), but that is independent of having a phobia of that.

That something could be true doesn't mean we should believe that it is true.

Agreed. This is how I view atheism. :)

There should be some reason, besides faith, that it is true.

Really? Why? Who decides should? Is should objective, or subjective?

Take intelligent life outside of our solar system. There are far more likely reasons to believe that it is true than prayer.

Let's tighten up the language. PRAYER HAPPENS. All the time. To this extent, prayer is true. Bad analogy. Say the singular expected result of prayer instead, I insist that's necessary.

Belief in prayer relies on faith and confirmation bias.

I agree that only people with faith have any use for prayer.

Belief in intelligent life outside of our solar system relies on observation of our earth. An understanding of science, abiogenesis, evolution, observations of the solar system, logical inference and many other rational and objective criteria.

Abiogenesis? Help me out on that one RandFan, since you bring it up.

Belief in prayer simply does not equate with a belief in intelligent life outside of our solar system. One relies on blind faith the other on science and probability.

No, of course they don't completely equate.

So you do admit that there are *types* of faith. That's good, I'll settle for that.

I agree that science is not necessary for belief in God, and not capable of proving God. All human disciplines are inherently flawed. :)

As for probability, I would point out that we lack the data for such claims, but you're welcome to prove me wrong. I've read varying reports on probablity estimates on intelligent life outside of our own planet, and the common thread is a lack of data. I've taken too much statsitical analysis to be impressed by your claim of probablity. Let's do the math if you want though, I'm up for it.

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:36 AM

I dunno......seems as if this is saying that prayer could possibly be just sending good vibes out into the world.

Anyone got any stuides on the known effects of "good vibes?":cool:

Studies? Try asking women who are into good vibes, I'm sure there are sex toys forums out there. :)

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:46 AM

If someone shows me a written promise that states you can "ask for anything, and you shall have it," and I ask and don't get it--I ask for many different things of varying importance, for myself, and for others, and nothing happens--I'm going to call that promise a lie.

My previous post responding to this phrase (several pages ago) was not responded to, so I'll try again.

Read John 15:7. The whole verse. Not just the part you give.

I agree that if you present the phrase you put in quotes as a snippet of John 15:7, you in fact *are* promulgating a lie.

And if that lie was written thousands of years ago by a person, on behalf of an invisible Omni-God, I'm going to strongly doubt, or even totally deny, the existence of said invisible being.

I agree that if that phrase, a fragment of a sentence, is taken on its own, and every other of the dozens of other gospel passages regarding prayer are ignored, then yes, I too would deny the existence of said God.

I believe that to say "God, I pray that you would restore my leg," is exactly the same as saying "I wish my leg would grow back," and has exactly the same results.

God will restore all things to all those who believe in him.

Eventually. :)

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:48 AM

Thanks Beth,

I don't have a problem with prayer per se. I don't deny that it is benificial. On the contrary, in another thread on this forum I argue that prayer can be a very effective coping mechanism.

Sure. All exercises and all methodologies can, and are, effective coping mechanisms.

What is irrational is to believe that prayer can change the course of events that could not otherwise be changed without prayer.

I disagree in general, but agree in the specific.

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 05:51 AM

Honey, all we're doing is swapping anecdotes, because everyone I've ever known has believed just that, if they believe in prayer at all.

If they believe in prayer at all? That's an interesting caveat. Why the need for the caveat, and what does the caveat mean exactly?

And sling, a good thing about this forum is that it's a way to meet other people. So you're wrong, because you're met me now, and I don't believe, as you say, "just that". :)

Preachers get all red-faced and sweaty, screaming at you from the pulpit over and over that god can heal, god can personally help you, god can do anything you ask, and will, if you'll only believe. Then, when it doesn't happen, they say you didn't really believe. Not enough. Not like you should.

And that explains the caveat. Well, there are many preachers out there I guess, the type you're familiar with, and the types I'm familiar with. Let's just say I'm glad you no longer hang with that crowd.

Sorry, but I spent a good 30 years listening to that. Wherever you guys are from who say No True Scots--er, Christian really believes that, you can't have been anywhere near a bible-Thumpin', Holy-Rollin', southern church.

They're out there, and they ain't a handful.

So let's agree to avoid them!

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 06:02 AM

Beth, people do believe that it is possible for God to work miracles. People believe that God can heal people. If you don't believe that then that is fine.

Here, watch this video (http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Video&op=view&video_id=55) and tell me that people don't believe that God can grant miracles.

Beth, I can show you many videos of ministers promising miracles. These ministers make hundreds of millions of dollars and they all tell their followers that the followers must have faith in Jesus Christ and they can be healed.

Exactly! These are PEOPLE promising miracles. God's word is in the Bible, you don't need to see a preacher charging hundreds and thousands of dollars to hear God's word. People who give hundreds and thousands of dollars to see a preacher who will heal them aren't going to God. They're going to a preacher!

Read your last paragraph. "Ministers promising miracles". EXACTLY! Faith in the minister, and not in God. Because if you had faith in God, why go to the minister who promises to heal you if you give him hundreds or thousands of dollars? Why not go to the poor church in your town with the minister who doesn't have a TV show and doesn't drive the high-falootin (sp?) car?

I don't accept the notion that Christians don't believe that God performs miracles.

Neither do I.

That prayer is simply a feel good exercise.

Agreed, I think practically every Christian would reject that idea.

But...

Here we go again. Understanding. We have an understanding of prayer. Beth has an understanding of prayer. You have an understanding of prayer.

So. You are able to talk about how Christians view prayer. You recognize that Christians (in general) believe that God performs miracles. You recognize that Christians (in general) believe that prayer is more than just a feel good exercise. Now, where do we diverge? You don't recognize that Christians (in general) also believe that prayer is *not* a superstition, as they don't accept that God is compelled to do anything of their desire just because they asked it of God.

You say otherwise, that's fine. That is just anecdotal. I can show you people who do believe that God grants miracles. That God does answer these kinds of prayers.

Most Christians believe that God does grant miracles. Sometimes. Not very often probably. This is our lot, we have to live with it, God isn't going to perform miracles non-stop and do away with the human condition.

See, even if you believe that God grants miracles, it is still possible (Bri I think suggests necessary as well at least in practice, and I agree) that doesn't mean that you believe that God exists solely to perform miracles for us so that there would be no suffering and no death. Because there is suffering and there is death, they are necessary results of sin. But God can still perform miracles. But the miracles will not do away with suffering and death. And the miracles don't hold a candle to Jesus. That's our salvation right there, a healing from bone cancer doesn't compare. But it's a hell of a lot easier to fixate on that, be you a believer or a non-believer. And it's a great way to make a living as you rightly and ably point out.

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 06:04 AM

This is not the argument. No one is arguing that Christians believe that God grants every prayer. That is a really tired strawman.

Then why is the phrase "whatever you ask for you shall receive" continually supplied?

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 06:10 AM

If I believe that putting mayonnaise on my elbow is the reason I feel good, it might work (coincidentally) but it is not rational.

As a fetish or something it might, in fact, make you feel good. I'm undecided about whether or not fetishes are rational or not, but some of them seem kind of interesting! Not that one. Mayonnaise on my foot though.....hmmmmm.....maybe I'll try that one tonight. :) But not Hellman's, Hellman's is the devil's food. It's made in hell!

I don't quite follow your logic. In any event, believing that an act (prayer) can influence unrelated events is by definition irrational. There really is no getting around that fact.

I disagree. Believing that it *necessarily* influences results would be irrational to me.

So, if I believe that sacrificing a virgin will bring rain and sometimes such things happen then it is not only rational but advantageous to hold that belief?

You mean sacrificing a virgin's virginity? Ummm...it *might* be advantageous to hold that belief, but please check with the virgin first. :)

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 06:16 AM

Apparently, the Bible contains promises, made by God/Christ, that state whatever you pray for, you'll receive from God.

I'm glad you say apparently, because the Christian understanding is that it isn't that simple.

Also, Christians do believe that God will answer all of our prayers, and the PERFECT answer is Jesus.

Some of these verses contain conditions, such as "in Christ's name" or "believing," but all of them promise that whatever is asked for, is granted.

With caveats, as you admit.

I maintain that my personal experience shows these promises are not kept.

I've already had a response to this and it probably is best if I don't do it again as I think this is a sensitive one.

Even when the conditions are met, they are not kept. People who pray do not always get what they ask for, nor do they often get what they ask for.

The condition is GOD'S WILL BE DONE.

How about the Lord's Prayer? That's a good prayer.

Here's Mother Teresa's prayer:
DEAR JESUS, help me to spread Thy fragrance everywhere I go. Flood my soul with Thy spirit and love. Penetrate and possess my whole being so utterly that all my life may only be a radiance of Thine. Shine through me and be so in me that every soul I come in contact with may feel Thy presence in my soul. Let them look up and see no longer me but only Jesus. Stay with me and then I shall begin to shine as you shine, so to shine as to be a light to others.

That's a good one too.

-Elliot

Tricky

31st July 2006, 06:18 AM

But prayer does function in a definable and observable way. You've never seen two or three gathered in His Name, praying together?
You are talking about the mechanism of praying, not how prayer functions. By this logic, the action of rubbing a rabbit's foot functions in a definable, observable way.

But you, of all people, should know that prayer is purported to function as a way to communicate with God. This is it's main function, and that function cannot be observed. All you can observe is two or three gathered in His Name rubbing a rabbit's foot.

I'd say that such people are relatively right, and objectively wrong. The belief (I wouldn't call it irrational personally, but I'll give it to you for the moment) is irrational, but I don't think the people are.Nobody (I hope) is 100% irrational, or 100% rational for that matter. But if you hold an irrational belief, then by definition you are irrational, at least as regards that belief.

I think that prayer is prayer, and the key is the understanding of the person/people engaged in the praying. If your understanding of what they are doing is different from their understanding of what they are doing, then you're not understanding each other, and it's a shame that labels of irrational irrational irrational have to follow from that.
I understand that they are trying to communicate with God. Since there is no objective way of determining whether or not that communication is succeeding, then their actions are, again, by definition, irrational. Doing something that cannot be shown to work is irrational. Don't be insulted. We all do irrational thins from time to time, but we should be ready to recognize this when they are pointed out.

I'll give you that some praying can be irrational...and I'll say that the *understanding* behind such prayers is the reason for that.
Certainly I can *understand* why people pray.

You're talking about the results of prayer. I think that's an entirely different thing from the exercise of prayer. I've already said many times that singular expectations as necessary results of prayer goes against the Christian understanding of prayer. In fact, I'd call *that* superstitious, as it doesn't put trust in God's will but in our own will (this follows from the Catholic Church's understanding of superstition, with which you probably don't agree).
Would you say then that prayer is just the ritual (or "exercise") itself and that it has nothing to do with actual communication with God? Because that is what it looks like from this paragraph.

Bri

31st July 2006, 06:24 AM

Well, hon, I rather think it's all opinion, on this particular topic. :p

That's pretty much my point. Furthermore, I believe it's a mistake to say that one opinion is necessarily more or less rational than another opinion without taking into account the reasons behind the opinion (unless one or the other belief is internally inconsistent, of course). It is possible that an opinion that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is less rational than an opinion in prayer depending on the nature of each belief and the reasons for each belief (and even then, whether one is more rational than the other is probably itself an opinion). That's what I've been trying to get across. I don't believe there is any objective criteria for determining which of two opinions is necessarily more rational than the other.

Anyway, I did find an interesting article which, as with most interesting articles, doesn't answer questions so much as poses new ones in response:

Is prayer just wishful thinking? (The Hong Kong Philosophy Cafe)
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/HKPC/prayer.htm

Near the end, this snip:

(empahsis mine)

I dunno......seems as if this is saying that prayer could possibly be just sending good vibes out into the world.

Anyone got any stuides on the known effects of "good vibes?":cool:

Interesting article. Thanks for posting it.

-Bri

Bri

31st July 2006, 06:45 AM

This is not the argument. No one is arguing that Christians believe that God grants every prayer. That is a really tired strawman.

You've flip-flopped on this supposed strawman several times during this thread. If anyone thinks this is your argument, it's because you have yet to state exactly what you think Christians actually do believe, much less how their belief is necessarily less rational than other beliefs that you hold to be rational.

Nup, I never said always. But I can't prove any. I don't know anyone who can prove any that can't be otherwise explained.

I never said always, though.

Actually, you also keep slipping back to the same implication that Christians beileve that God grants any and all prayers:

If someone shows me a written promise that states you can "ask for anything, and you shall have it," and I ask and don't get it--I ask for many different things of varying importance, for myself, and for others, and nothing happens--I'm going to call that promise a lie.

I think your point can be made without implying a belief that nobody holds or overstating the case against beliefs that are held. As far as I can tell, the only Christian belief that would necessarily be irrational (or even necessarily more irrational than other opinions that you might consider rational) is the belief that God grants any and all prayers. Which I assume is why it is tempting to keep bringing up this strawman.

-Bri

RandFan

31st July 2006, 07:23 AM

Then why is the phrase "whatever you ask for you shall receive" continually supplied? To demonstrate the promise made. And by that promise he should be able to answer all categories of prayer. However there are a number of categories of prayer that he never answers. And we should note that if he doesn't answer all prayers then that scripture, along with others, is quite misleading.

RandFan

31st July 2006, 07:25 AM

I disagree. Believing that it *necessarily* influences results would be irrational to me.That's fine but understand that there is no mechanism for prayer (an act unrelated to an event), to influence that event. There is also zero evidence that it works.

Believing that it "nesessarily" influences results would be more irrational.

RandFan

31st July 2006, 07:38 AM

You've flip-flopped on this supposed strawman several times during this thread. If anyone thinks this is your argument, it's because you have yet to state exactly what you think Christians actually do believe, much less how their belief is necessarily less rational than other beliefs that you hold to be rational.No, but if believing this makes you fell better that is ok. I have been quite consistent with my argument. I have told you time and agin that beliefs vary from person to peson and it would be wrong to state what those beliefs would be. I would in fact be erecting a straw man. All I can do is demonstrate that a belief that prayer can influence events is irrational. Let me restate my position.

1.) The Bible promises to answer ALL prayers.
2.) There are a number of categories of prayers that are never answered (as far as we know).
3.) There is zero evidence that prayer works any better than chance.
4.) Belief in an object or act (prayer) that is not related to a course of events that influences those events is irrational.

The more likely a person believes that prayer can and does influences the outcome of events the more irrational a person is. This is also do in part to your own definition which I have reworded here.

A belief is irrational if it balances the chances of the event occurring and the potential consequence or benefit of the event occurring and it choses the less likely over the more likely. The greater the difference the more irrational.

Tricky

31st July 2006, 07:47 AM

I'm glad you say apparently, because the Christian understanding is that it isn't that simple.It would seem that the Christian understanding is that only God understands how prayer works.
Also, Christians do believe that God will answer all of our prayers, and the PERFECT answer is Jesus.
Well that's just silly. Depending on the question, "Jesus" is a stupid answer. Not always, though, like if the question is "Who is Matty Alou's brother?"

How about the Lord's Prayer? That's a good prayer.

Here's Mother Teresa's prayer:
DEAR JESUS, help me to spread Thy fragrance everywhere I go. Flood my soul with Thy spirit and love. Penetrate and possess my whole being so utterly that all my life may only be a radiance of Thine. Shine through me and be so in me that every soul I come in contact with may feel Thy presence in my soul. Let them look up and see no longer me but only Jesus. Stay with me and then I shall begin to shine as you shine, so to shine as to be a light to others.

That's a good one too.

And what do those prayers say? They say "hooray for God and hooray for Jesus". They make little mention of actual behaviours you should undertake in order to "shine" or what you should do to earn your "daily bread", though the LP does instruct us to forgive, though not which trespasses specifically to forgive. As such, they are not very useful for any sort of moral lessons.

So is a prayer like a pep-rally in that it is a lot of cheering which has nothing to do with the game?

Bri

31st July 2006, 07:57 AM

When you say possibility of prayer do you mean...well, you tell me!

I misspoke. The possibility that prayers are granted by God is fact, in the sense that it isn't impossibile that prayers are granted by God. That prayers are (or have been) granted is not fact. We do not know for a fact if there has ever been a prayer that has been granted by God.

I disagree with this. I say that believers in prayer believe that the exercise of prayer inherently works, in and of itself, and completely independent of specific results. They also believe that all prayers are answered, but in manifold ways, many/most of which have nothing to do with the things that we'd agree to be "evidence".

I meant that if someone believed that prayer produced the specific results prayed for every time, then their belief would clearly be irrational because clearly the specific results prayed for are not granted every time. Belief that a prayer might be answered in some other way that has nothing to do with the results being prayed for wouldn't fit in that category (and wouldn't necessarily be irrational).

-Bri

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 08:12 AM

To demonstrate the promise made.

If you really got into a verse, the context of the verse, and the totality of prayer in the gospels, instead of selecting a phrase culled from a verse, I think you'd see this from my point of view. But I won't ever be able to get you to do that, I don't think.

And by that promise he should be able to answer all categories of prayer.

Well *should* is a whole different banana. I don't believe in telling God what he should do.

However there are a number of categories of prayer that he never answers.

You've said this many times and I'm not willing to accept this dogmatic statement on faith alone.

And we should note that if he doesn't answer all prayers then that scripture, along with others, is quite misleading.

I agree that some people can be misled by all of this.

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 08:17 AM

That's fine but understand that there is no mechanism for prayer (an act unrelated to an event), to influence that event.

You mean mechanism as in...prayer being necessarily attached to a particular result, right?

You say that a prayer (the act) is not related to the result (the event), and I say that might be the case sometimes, most of the time, rarely, I dunno. It's not something I'm going to be dogmatic about. I'm not going to say that it's always related to the event or never related to the event. I just don't.

Also, just because we can't explain a mechanism does not mean it doesn't exist, think about life before neo-Darwinian evolution if you dare.

There is also zero evidence that it works.

There is anecdotal evidence which may be rejected and/or explained away.

Believing that it "nesessarily" influences results would be more irrational.

I average about 1 or 2 typos per post I reckon, but thanks for not holding that against me. :(

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 08:23 AM

Let me restate my position.

1.) The Bible promises to answer ALL prayers.

With caveats.

2.) There are a number of categories of prayers that are never answered (as far as we know).

Or, not answered as we think they should be answered (limbs regenerating in front of our shocked eyes).

3.) There is zero evidence that prayer works any better than chance.

Just anecdotes.

4.) Belief in an object or act (prayer) that is not related to a course of events that influences those events is irrational.

I think point 4 is a coping mechanism on your part (just my opinion). It would wreck your world view if there was a relation, so there can't be, and those who say there is must be irrational. I don't hold this coping mechanism against you, if you care that is and I doubt you do, just like I'm caring less and less about who you consider to be irrational. It really doesn't matter.

The more likely a person believes that prayer can and does influences the outcome of events the more irrational a person is. This is also do in part to your own definition which I have reworded here.

I see that this means a lot to you, so I'll stop repeating what I keep saying, because in turn you just repeat what you keep saying.

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 08:26 AM

I misspoke. The possibility that prayers are granted by God is fact, in the sense that it isn't impossibile that prayers are granted by God. That prayers are (or have been) granted is not fact. We do not know for a fact if there has ever been a prayer that has been granted by God.

Gotcha. I agree that there are no universally established facts when it comes to the possibility of answered prayer. If there were, this would go against the mass of the Bible which requires us to have faith (and no caveats on that one!).

I meant that if someone believed that prayer produced the specific results prayed for every time, then their belief would clearly be irrational because clearly the specific results prayed for are not granted every time.

Agreed.

Belief that a prayer might be answered in some other way that has nothing to do with the results being prayed for wouldn't fit in that category (and wouldn't necessarily be irrational).

Agreed.

-Elliot

Bri

31st July 2006, 08:33 AM

No, but if believing this makes you fell better that is ok. I have been quite consistent with my argument. I have told you time and agin that beliefs vary from person to peson and it would be wrong to state what those beliefs would be. I would in fact be erecting a straw man.

You in fact are erecting the very straw man that you claim that you're not erecting by insisting that #1 below is true, when in fact you are interpreting some passages of scripture in a way that no Christians that I know of interpret it.

All I can do is demonstrate that a belief that prayer can influence events is irrational.

The word "can" that I've embolded here usually means "can possibly" when used in this context. If you're using it in a different way, please clarify. Otherwise, you've already admitted that it's possible that belief in prayer influences events, then such a belief is rational by your own admission.

Of course, you've obfuscated the term "irrational" by recently using phrases like "less rational" or "more rational" to make it difficult to tell exactly what you're saying, so it's possible that I'm misunderstanding your use of that term also. However, assuming that it would be inaccurate to label something as "irrational" that isn't necessarily "less rational" than something you would label as "rational," you have yet to show that Christian belief in prayer is necessarily any "less rational" than other beliefs that you have held to be "rational," and therefore for you to characterize it as "irrational" would be inaccurate.

Let me restate my position.

1.) The Bible promises to answer ALL prayers.
2.) There are a number of categories of prayers that are never answered (as far as we know).
3.) There is zero evidence that prayer works any better than chance.
4.) Belief in an object or act (prayer) that is not related to a course of events that influences those events is irrational.

We've already discussed that #1 is based on a particular interpretation of the Bible that Christians don't use, and therefore may not be true.

You've wisely added the parenthetical "as far as we know" to #2 which changes its implications drastically.

#3 seems to be accurate.

#4 doesn't accurately describe prayer as Christians believe it, and even if it did, it doesn't seem to follow from the other statements except perhaps for very narrow definitions of "irrational" which would allow other beliefs that you have previously held to be rational to also be irrational.

The more likely a person believes that prayer can and does influences the outcome of events the more irrational a person is. This is also do in part to your own definition which I have reworded here.

I can't make heads or tails of these two sentences. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more likely a person believes" so I'll wait to comment until you clarify. Also, please clarify what you mean by "can" in this case, if you mean something other than "can possibly." Finally, what definition of mine have you reworded here?

-Bri

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 08:36 AM

It would seem that the Christian understanding is that only God understands how prayer works.

Do you mean the act of praying, the presence of a relationship while praying, or the tangible results of prayer? I think the Christian understanding is the world is what it is, there is pain and suffering, and true deliverance won't be had in our finite physical lifespan. Understanding prayer within that context...I think I understand how it basically works. As for how God responds to our prayer, yes, only God understands how and why he responds to us as he does, although our dogmas say that we are separated from God as a result of our sinful nature so that has something to do with it, and God chooses to respect the consequence of our sin.

Well that's just silly. Depending on the question, "Jesus" is a stupid answer. Not always, though, like if the question is "Who is Matty Alou's brother?"

You mean Felipe, right?

We know that our redeemer lives. Yes, that is silly to some. Oh well!

And what do those prayers say? They say "hooray for God and hooray for Jesus".

No, that's what you say. :) I'm sorry that's all you get out of 'em, and I'm thankful that they mean so much more to so many others.

They make little mention of actual behaviours you should undertake in order to "shine" or what you should do to earn your "daily bread", though the LP does instruct us to forgive, though not which trespasses specifically to forgive. As such, they are not very useful for any sort of moral lessons.

I don't think that short prayers are supposed to provide moral lessons! We can get those from other places.

So is a prayer like a pep-rally in that it is a lot of cheering which has nothing to do with the game?

No! If you want a pep-rally, get thee to a pep-rally. Maybe it's just me, but the two prayers referred to are *nothing* like any pep-rally I've ever seen.

-Elliot

Bri

31st July 2006, 08:52 AM

There. I said "always," or rather, "not always." But I said it.
Now, should they always get what they ask for? The promises say they will. I'm not talking about practicality here, or necessity, or fairness, or feasibility. I'm saying that the promises say whatever you ask for, provided the conditions are met, you'll receive.

It has been my experience with Christians who believe God to be benevolent that a majority also believe that God grants prayer only when it is best for them, a condition that would often be impossible to determine unless one were omniscient.

-Bri

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 08:56 AM

You are talking about the mechanism of praying, not how prayer functions. By this logic, the action of rubbing a rabbit's foot functions in a definable, observable way.

Yes, that's exactly what I meant.

See, I don't know what is meant by "how prayer functions". I think that is a pretty personal question actually, and different people can give different answers.

But you, of all people, should know that prayer is purported to function as a way to communicate with God.

I'd say build a relationship, but sure.

This is it's main function, and that function cannot be observed.

Not directly, I agree.

All you can observe is two or three gathered in His Name rubbing a rabbit's foot.

Yes, that's the point I was trying to make (sans rabbit foot).

Nobody (I hope) is 100% irrational, or 100% rational for that matter. But if you hold an irrational belief, then by definition you are irrational, at least as regards that belief.

I disagree, I think there can be rational reasons for holding irrational beliefs. Here are a few.
1) The individual disagrees with the imprimatur of irrational in regards to the belief.
2) The individual feels that rationality may be independent of objective reality, and for that reason feels no need to necessarily respect labels which are independent of objective reality.
3) The individual believes in super-human factors that are not confined by human standards of rationality.
4) A benefit is recognized in holding the belief that appears to correspond to holding the belief, and while that correspondence is intact, the belief is held.

I can come up with more. My point? There can be rational reasons for holding a judged irrational belief, and that would be a rational thing to do, therefore holding an irrational belief does not necessarily make one irrational.

I understand that they are trying to communicate with God. Since there is no objective way of determining whether or not that communication is succeeding,

Why would there need to be, necessarily?

then their actions are, again, by definition, irrational.

I disagree, because of the question I just raised.

Doing something that cannot be shown to work is irrational.

Not if being "shown to work" is secondary to other motivations. Meaning, if you are praying with the intention that the result of your prayer will be such that you will have demonstrated to every skeptic that your prayer has "worked", then yeah, I'd call that irrational.

Would you say then that prayer is just the ritual (or "exercise") itself and that it has nothing to do with actual communication with God?

OK.

Prayer and power are *two* different things. That's why I started this thread to begin with.

Prayer is prayer. The result is something different.

Now, as far as actual communication with God goes, we communicate with God in a different way that we communicate with each other.

-Elliot

Tricky

31st July 2006, 09:52 AM

See, I don't know what is meant by "how prayer functions". I think that is a pretty personal question actually, and different people can give different answers.
Then prayer has no actual function. If it is all just a "personal" feeling and has no objective definition of how it works, then it can't be said to work at all, since no one can agree what that means.

I'd say build a relationship, but sure. LOL. Yeah, but it is tough to build a relationship with someone with whom you have no communication. Communication is the foundation of a relationship. So if you can't demonstrate the existence of the foundation, it's pretty hard to demonstrate the existence of the relationship.

I disagree, I think there can be rational reasons for holding irrational beliefs. Here are a few.
1) The individual disagrees with the imprimatur of irrational in regards to the belief.
2) The individual feels that rationality may be independent of objective reality, and for that reason feels no need to necessarily respect labels which are independent of objective reality.
(my addition: Then this individual does not know what "rational" means.)
3) The individual believes in super-human factors that are not confined by human standards of rationality.
4) A benefit is recognized in holding the belief that appears to correspond to holding the belief, and while that correspondence is intact, the belief is held.

I can come up with more. My point? There can be rational reasons for holding a judged irrational belief, and that would be a rational thing to do, therefore holding an irrational belief does not necessarily make one irrational.
Yes, and I can list the rational reasons for believing in Santa Claus too.
1) You see him in stores
2) They have songs about him.
3) (and most importantly) He brings you gifts

etc. etc.

Here's the thing. Once you know a belief is irrational, can you still rationally believe in it? I submit that you cannot. The only excuse for believing something irrational is ignorance. That is why most people will not agree that their beliefs are irrational, but will try instead to contend that they are rational. So really, we come back to the definition of what is meant by "rational". On this, I suspect we will not soon agree.

Why would there need to be, necessarily?To determine if your behavior is rational. Talking to imaginary friends is irrational. If you agree with this, then the only way you can make your communication with God rational is to believe that He is not imaginary. If it is not important to you that your communication with God is no different from the communication with an imaginary friend, then there is no need to determine if this communication is actually occurring.

I disagree, because of the question I just raised. And I disagree because your need has nothing to do with rationality. If it is so important to you that you have an imaginary friend that you will brook no inquiries, by yourself or others, about how you know this friend, then you can continue to maintain that this belief in the imaginary friend is rational. I could not do this.

Not if being "shown to work" is secondary to other motivations. Meaning, if you are praying with the intention that the result of your prayer will be such that you will have demonstrated to every skeptic that your prayer has "worked", then yeah, I'd call that irrational.
Not just for skeptics. For yourself. Maybe you don't need to know if it is rational. Maybe you don't care. And that is one of the biggest difference between skeptics and believers. Skeptics care if their own beliefs are irrational. At least, this one does.

Prayer and power are *two* different things. That's why I started this thread to begin with.

Prayer is prayer. The result is something different.

Then it seems you are saying that "results" have no connection to prayers. Zero zip zilch. they are *two* different things. Nothing you say to or hear from God has any effect on results.

But if that is not your argument and you still maintain that there is a connection, however tenuous, between prayer and results, then without evidence, that belief is irrational. By definition.

Now, as far as actual communication with God goes, we communicate with God in a different way that we communicate with each other.LOL. Obviously. Unless He has a forum board out there on the net.:D

Meffy

31st July 2006, 09:53 AM

LOL. Obviously. Unless He has a forum board out there on the net.:D
Oh, but he does!

Hey, wait a minute -- you mean that guy with the glowering eye and white beard and million-dollar challenge ISN'T GOD?!?!

*9_9* Ooooops...

Beth

31st July 2006, 10:03 AM

No, clearly not. I have been very careful to be very precise. Though I have stated my opinion that prayer is irrational I have focused on the miracle aspect of prayer.

I'm sorry, but I've read through the entire thread and that isn't how I interpret your posts. However, it is an interesting conundrum that in many cases, the more precise you make something, the more convoluted and easily misunderstood you are.

I think that it is irrational. If I believe that putting mayonnaise on my elbow is the reason I feel good, it might work (coincidentally) but it is not rational. But I'm perfectly happy to let those who believe that putting mayonnaise on their elbow will make them feel better, believe that it is rational. It's not but that is not the subject of this discussion.

Just because someone is mistaken about why or how something occurs, it doesn't make it irrational to believe that that something will occur. For example, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's the anger of the Gods or teutonic forces, believing that a volcano is immenient in certain situations is quite rational.

I don't quite follow your logic. In any event, believing that an act (prayer) can influence unrelated events is by definition irrational. There really is no getting around that fact.

So it's irrational to believe in chaos theory? That a butterfly in Singapore can influence weather in Brazil? According to chaos theory seemingly unrelated events can indeed have an influence. So I don't find your supposition that such a belief is irrational valid.

Sorry, but I have to go now and can't respond to the rest of your post.

Beth

Tricky

31st July 2006, 10:29 AM

Oh, but he does!

Hey, wait a minute -- you mean that guy with the glowering eye and white beard and million-dollar challenge ISN'T GOD?!?!

*9_9* Ooooops...God should be able to prevent himself from going bald.

Anacoluthon64

31st July 2006, 10:42 AM

So it's irrational to believe in chaos theory? That a butterfly in Singapore can influence weather in Brazil? According to chaos theory seemingly unrelated events can indeed have an influence.Total non sequitur because this is a straw man of chaos theory. The butterfly-prompting-a-tornado metaphor isn't meant to suggest that a butterfly can cause inclement weather halfway across the globe; it is meant to suggest that such wing-calisthenics of Lepidopterae can make the difference between bad weather and somewhat worse (or better) weather. The central idea is that in certain systems a minuscule difference in initial conditions can, in the longer run, manifest decidedly differently.

'Luthon64

Tricky

31st July 2006, 11:02 AM

For example, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's the anger of the Gods or teutonic forces, believing that a volcano is immenient in certain situations is quite rational.
Damn Germans! They're causing all these volcanos!:D

Meffy

31st July 2006, 11:08 AM

Q: What do you call a German god who burrows into the depths to cause volcanoes?

A: A rootin' Teuton.

P.S.: My impression is that the traditional God could go bald -- by pulling his hair out by the double handful while lamenting "Why me? Gevalt, such a pain my kids give me!"

RandFan

31st July 2006, 11:33 AM

I'm sorry, but I've read through the entire thread and that isn't how I interpret your posts. I have no control over how you interpret something. I can only make arguments. If there is a error in one of my arguments please demonstrate that flaw and we will deal with that. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.

Just because someone is mistaken about why or how something occurs, it doesn't make it irrational to believe that that something will occur. For example, it doesn't matter whether you believe it's the anger of the Gods or teutonic forces, believing that a volcano is immenient in certain situations is quite rational. Sorry, you are demonstrably wrong and your argument is spurious.

So it's irrational to believe in chaos theory? That a butterfly in Singapore can influence weather in Brazil? According to chaos theory seemingly unrelated events can indeed have an influence. So I don't find your supposition that such a belief is irrational valid. (emphasis mine) Your argument is spurious. Please note the word "seemingly". It is theoretically understood how a small variable could effect a complicated system. There is logic and reason behind Chaos theory. There is no theoretical logic and reason behind the notion that prayer can effect an unrelated event. There are only supernatural explanations.

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 06:30 PM

Then prayer has no actual function. If it is all just a "personal" feeling and has no objective definition of how it works, then it can't be said to work at all, since no one can agree what that means.

Sure you can say that it works. What's stopping anyone from saying that? Not you (duh), but also not your argument. You're just saying something that others disagree with.

As for objective definitions, before there were objective definitions things worked, so I don't think that the presence of an objective definition is needed for anything other than, I guess, a coping mechanism. Why else would you *need* it? Would things *not* work if we couldn't objectively define them?

LOL. Yeah, but it is tough to build a relationship with someone with whom you have no communication. Communication is the foundation of a relationship. So if you can't demonstrate the existence of the foundation, it's pretty hard to demonstrate the existence of the relationship.

And again, I don't feel any need to do such a thing. If there's an *actual* communication/relationship going down, this is an irrelevant point to the people *involved* in the relationship, in two ways. First, in the way that people pray anyhow and will continue to do so, and second, in the actuality itself independent of skepticism.

Yes, and I can list the rational reasons for believing in Santa Claus too.
1) You see him in stores
2) They have songs about him.
3) (and most importantly) He brings you gifts

etc. etc.

Exactly, which is why I don't consider people who believe in Santa Claus to be irrational.

Here's the thing. Once you know a belief is irrational, can you still rationally believe in it?

I'm not sure. I'll say maybe for now.

I submit that you cannot. The only excuse for believing something irrational is ignorance.

No, there can be other excuses...unless, you mean the only good excuse. Is that what you mean? Sorry, you're welcome to say that you mean exactly what you say...

Also, it may be ignorant to say that something is irrational when it isn't irrational...not something I want to push but I'm just throwing it out there. :)

That is why most people will not agree that their beliefs are irrational, but will try instead to contend that they are rational.

Sure.

So really, we come back to the definition of what is meant by "rational". On this, I suspect we will not soon agree.

Right. I tend to think that just about everybody is rational. The irrational ones get weeded out pretty quick. I know it makes people feel *really good about themselves* to dub others as irrational, and that's all I think that is. Ubermenschianism. Let's debate topics and not call people names.

Talking to imaginary friends is irrational.

Make you a deal. If God is imaginary, oh well! Deal?

Since I don't think God is imaginary, and since just about everybody who prays also doesn't think that God is imaginary, a religious believer can be in absolute agreement with your above statement.

If you agree with this, then the only way you can make your communication with God rational is to believe that He is not imaginary.

I disagree. There may be a hell of a good reason for a person to talk to an imaginary friend, and if there is, I'm not going to call that person a name. If it gets the job done for them, that's great. I don't need to impose a label on others who have different needs than I do. Except the Ubermenschian thing, but that's in response to others who call other people names and it's done for rhetorical reasons.

If it is not important to you that your communication with God is no different from the communication with an imaginary friend, then there is no need to determine if this communication is actually occurring.

I agree. What's this need thing all about?

And I disagree because your need has nothing to do with rationality. If it is so important to you that you have an imaginary friend that you will brook no inquiries, by yourself or others, about how you know this friend, then you can continue to maintain that this belief in the imaginary friend is rational. I could not do this.

I agree that you may have limitations that I and other religious believers do not have.

Since I don't think God is imaganary your point kind of goes right over me head.

As for inquiries, the sort of inquiries I would engage with on this matter are not scientific inquiries. They're on a different level, and you can label those as you'd like as well. :)

I think it's clear that I am comfortable in my belief in God. I'll take full responsibility for that. If I'm wrong, oh well.

Not just for skeptics. For yourself. Maybe you don't need to know if it is rational.

I think it is rational. Maybe you can say that I need to think that it is rational. If it's irrational, oh well.

Maybe you don't care.

I sort of care. There are things I certainly care about a heck of a lot more.

And that is one of the biggest difference between skeptics and believers. Skeptics care if their own beliefs are irrational. At least, this one does.

Again you're trying to force me into a dichotomy. Either I care to the extent that you care, or I don't care at all. I think relatively speaking you can take my, I think, evident nonchalance as me not caring. But really, if I didn't care I don't think I'd be engaged in this whole rational/irrational thing. I do care in my own way. I don't care in the way that you care.

I'm more interested in whether or not my beliefs are objectively wrong, or objectively right. That means oodles more to me than this rational/irrational biz.

Then it seems you are saying that "results" have no connection to prayers.

Not in the way we would have it, no. Not in the way I *introduced* this thread, if you care to check the original post. :)

Zero zip zilch. they are *two* different things. Nothing you say to or hear from God has any effect on results.

Not in the way we have it, no. God will not be forced to accede to our will in the way we would have him accede to our will.

But if that is not your argument and you still maintain that there is a connection, however tenuous, between prayer and results, then without evidence, that belief is irrational. By definition.

No dictionary defintion I checked (five in the past few minutes) attaches lack of evidence to irrationality. And I have no desire to go any further into this particular point. I see you want to be dogmatic about how to define rational and irrational, and I'm not interested in such dogma, other than to say what I just said...and I'll say it again. Five dictionary definitions or irrational. Not one which mentions the words evidence.

-Elliot

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 06:36 PM

God should be able to prevent himself from going bald.

He'd definitely be able to pony up more than a million!

RandFan

31st July 2006, 06:59 PM

If you really got into a verse, the context of the verse, and the totality of prayer in the gospels, instead of selecting a phrase culled from a verse, I think you'd see this from my point of view. 1.) The Bible is not a coherent whole. It is very contradictory and there is no consensus as to the meaning of verses.
2.) I have supplied several complete verses.
3.) I did not take those scriptures out of context.

But I won't ever be able to get you to do that, I don't think.My argument is consistent and does not simply rely on a single verse taken out of context. The meaning of that verse is quite explicit. You may reject the verse but you have not given any reason to reject it. I think this little exercises is a great example of the problem of scripture. You are here telling me that what seems clear is in fact not clear and I must read the entire Bible and take everything into context before I can find the meaning of a single verse. That is very problematic. That is why there are so many different denominations. I'm curious, is it even possible to explain what exactly an individual scripture mean?

John 14:13-14

And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. Clearly Christ had a purpose for saying these words, what was that purpose? Are you honestly saying that we can't know what Christ meant unless we read the entire Bible? Most of the Bible?

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent?

Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
--Luke 11:10 - 12 And what does this mean?

Matthew 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.
Again, what is the message here? What is being conveyed?

Let's agree that,

1.) There is a god.
2.) God doesn't answer every prayer.
3.) God answers some prayers.

What do the above scriptures mean?

Well *should* is a whole different banana. I don't believe in telling God what he should do.The argument has nothing whatsoever to do with telling god what he should do. That is a really tired straw man. The argument is that it is demonstrable that there are prayers God never answers. That there is zero evidence that god answers prayers. That there is no logical connection between prayer and the events prayer for.

You've said this many times and I'm not willing to accept this dogmatic statement on faith alone. Hey, I'm not asking for faith. On the contrary, it IS a falsifiable claim. I'm waiting for you to falsify it.

I agree that some people can be misled by all of this. No kidding.

RandFan

31st July 2006, 07:08 PM

You mean mechanism as in...prayer being necessarily attached to a particular result, right?

You say that a prayer (the act) is not related to the result (the event), and I say that might be the case sometimes, most of the time, rarely, I dunno. It's not something I'm going to be dogmatic about. I'm not going to say that it's always related to the event or never related to the event. I just don't. Can you demonstrate any relation beyond a supposed one?

Also, just because we can't explain a mechanism does not mean it doesn't exist, think about life before neo-Darwinian evolution if you dare. Just because I can't explain a mechanism for flying reigndeer doesn't mean that such a mechanism doesn't exist.

There is anecdotal evidence which may be rejected and/or explained away. Anecdotal evidence speaks for itself. There is anecdotal evidence for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Elves, Leprechauns, etc.[/quote]

RandFan

31st July 2006, 07:16 PM

Just anecdotes.Which is to say zero.

I think point 4 is a coping mechanism on your part (just my opinion). It would wreck your world view if there was a relation, so there can't be, and those who say there is must be irrational. Elliot, on many occasions on this forum I have conceded when I was wrong. Some of those times were rather difficult I'll confess but I can assure you that I was quite capable of coping. I would be happy to discover that prayer were an effective means of healing. You need but provide the evidence. Lacking that I might as well put mayonnaise on my elbow.

Both work, and BTW, I have anecdotal evidence that mayonnaise on the elbow works to cure colds, flus and and other ailments.

I see that this means a lot to you, so I'll stop repeating what I keep saying, because in turn you just repeat what you keep saying.Leaving my church and letting go of my beliefs was a difficult thing for me to do. If the statement were not correct I would not repeat it. I only ask for evidence or logic to demonstrate that it is wrong. It's your choice whether to respond or not.

elliotfc

31st July 2006, 07:37 PM

1.) The Bible is not a coherent whole. It is very contradictory and there is no consensus as to the meaning of verses.

So why are you trying to make a point out single verses then? Why not just say the Bible is incoherent?

-----
Much of this post I completely disagree with, but I've already stated that I'll no longer repeat myself, so I'll respond to only a few of your points for that reason.
-----

I'm curious, is it even possible to explain what exactly an individual scripture mean?

*You've attempting to do just that*. You've taken verses and told me exactly what they mean, and now you're wondering whether or not such a thing is possible. Flabbergasting.

Clearly Christ had a purpose for saying these words, what was that purpose?

To tell us that we should pray.

Are you honestly saying that we can't know what Christ meant unless we read the entire Bible? Most of the Bible?

No. I've already given the parts that should be read to understand Christian prayer. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read. Most of the time would be spent in finding the verses actually, as opposed to reading them.

Let's agree that,

1.) There is a god.
2.) God doesn't answer every prayer.

But I won't agree with #2. Sometimes the answer could be *wait*. Is that not an answer?

3.) God answers some prayers.

He answers all prayers in his own way, and sometimes the answer can be *no*. Like if I prayed that I be Jesus on Mondays and Wednesdays and Jesus be Jesus only on Saturdays but that I also be Jesus on Saturdays too and if the phone rings then my dog Hu-Chu is Jesus but not if the phone rings only twice in which case the phone is Jesus.

What do the above scriptures mean?

I've already answered this. Darn it.

WHY DID YOU NOT INCLUDE VERSE 13 in your Luke passage? Verse 13 indicates EXACTLY WHAT GOD WILL PROVIDE WHEN WE PRAY. And why did you leave out his version of the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of Luke 11?

With Matthew 18:19...WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT VERSE 20 which completes the thought?

With Matthew 20:22, the verse directly preceding it says "have faith and do not waver". And does he say he say *WHEN* we will receive what we ask for? NO!

The argument has nothing whatsoever to do with telling god what he should do. That is a really tired straw man.

No. You're a tired straw man. Enough.

-Elliot

Beth

31st July 2006, 07:53 PM

I have no control over how you interpret something. I can only make arguments. If there is a error in one of my arguments please demonstrate that flaw and we will deal with that. Otherwise, thanks for your opinion.

You're Welcome! :D

Sorry, you are demonstrably wrong and your argument is spurious.

(emphasis mine) Your argument is spurious. Please note the word "seemingly". It is theoretically understood how a small variable could effect a complicated system. There is logic and reason behind Chaos theory. There is no theoretical logic and reason behind the notion that prayer can effect an unrelated event. There are only supernatural explanations.

Hmmm. I think there is a theoretical logic and reason behind the notion that prayer can effect an unrelated event. It happens to be a supernatural explanation. Seems to me that people who believes in God can, quite rationally, also believe in prayer.

So, are you saying that anyone who accepts, as a logical premise the notion that God exists is irrational to think that prayer might persuade God to effect an event?

Or are you saying that anyone who accepts, as a premise, the notion that their God exists is irrational?

Or I am I still failing to understand your argument properly?

Beth

31st July 2006, 08:05 PM

Okay, sorry.

Apparently, the Bible contains promises, made by God/Christ, that state whatever you pray for, you'll receive from God. Some of these verses contain conditions, such as "in Christ's name" or "believing," but all of them promise that whatever is asked for, is granted.

I maintain that my personal experience shows these promises are not kept. Even when the conditions are met, they are not kept. People who pray do not always get what they ask for, nor do they often get what they ask for.

There. I said "always," or rather, "not always." But I said it.
Now, should they always get what they ask for? The promises say they will. I'm not talking about practicality here, or necessity, or fairness, or feasibility. I'm saying that the promises say whatever you ask for, provided the conditions are met, you'll receive.

And I'm asking: why does that not seem to be true?
It should be true: it was promised. Maybe the conditions weren't properly met after all, though, because that is a requirement, right? But how are you to know, except by the fact that you don't get what you asked for? What if you never get whatever it is you asked for, from material thing to emotional state? What if all you asked for was comfort from God (not from other people doing his will, but God, himself), and you didn't get any? Why continue to be a believer, since it is obvious you are not pleasing to God, and can't even manage to muster enough belief to get a simple prayer granted? Isn't the fact that your prayers go unanswered enough proof that you actually don't believe in God, even though you apparently thought you did?

I can't answer your questions. I've never believed in such things, nor do I find such a religious viewpoint appealing or compelling. It would certainly be rational for someone whose prayers went unanswered to give up on their faith. However, it's equally rational for those who feel their prayers are answered, in some form or another, to maintain their faith. Belief and non-belief seem equally rational positions to me. That's why I'm agnostic.

It seems that when most prayers are answered/granted, the answer could be explained by other things. Impossible prayers (impossible for humans, but not for a god) never seem to get the desired response.

God is, supposedly, a god. Not a person: a god. If a god makes promises, it is shameful for the god to renege. I don't want to worship, can't worship, a god who can't keep his own promises, not even one time.

So that's why I am both saying and not saying "always." The bible tells me it should be always, but I'd be happy if one--just one--amputee prayed for his leg to grow back, and I could watch it grow back right before my eyes.

Just one.

I don't think you'll see that happen. Even Jesus, who supposedly could raise the dead, was never reputed to regrow an amputed limb. If you hold such a miracle as your standard of proof, you're safe from lapsing into belief again.

Tricky

31st July 2006, 08:18 PM

Sure you can say that it works. What's stopping anyone from saying that? Not you (duh), but also not your argument. You're just saying something that others disagree with. Yep. We disagree on the meaning of “it works”. We ought to get that agreed upon.

As for objective definitions, before there were objective definitions things worked, so I don't think that the presence of an objective definition is needed for anything other than, I guess, a coping mechanism. Why else would you *need* it? Would things *not* work if we couldn't objectively define them?
It is easy to define what “working” would entail. It is the essence of the Randi challenge. You simply agree that certain outcomes mean it works and other outcomes mean it doesn’t. If you wish to say prayer works, then you say what it means in advance. But unless you can find some way to demonstrate that the outcome satisfied the agreed-upon definition, then the term means nothing.

“Truth” is another one of those things like this. You hear people say all the time “It is true for me.” But if truth is not demonstrably true for everyone, how can you possibly call it truth?

And again, I don't feel any need to do such a thing. If there's an *actual* communication/relationship going down, this is an irrelevant point to the people *involved* in the relationship, in two ways. First, in the way that people pray anyhow and will continue to do so, and second, in the actuality itself independent of skepticism. It is NOT irrelevant to the people involved. It would be like saying “write a letter to me and I promise you your son in Iraq will read it.” Yes, you may feel better by doing it, but if it were exposed as a fake, do you not think the people who were told a falsehood would be outraged? No, it is not irrelevant at all if your heartfelt communication with God is not actually reaching its destination and you have no way of telling it.

Exactly, which is why I don't consider people who believe in Santa Claus to be irrational. Even after they learn that reindeer can’t fly, and that it would be physically impossible to visit every household in the world (or even a medium sized city) in a single night? You think it would still be rational for them to believe it? Yes, I can see we will never agree on what rational means.

No, there can be other excuses...unless, you mean the only good excuse. Is that what you mean? Sorry, you're welcome to say that you mean exactly what you say...
Yeah. “Good” was implied. Obviously, anybody can make a bad excuse. I mean an excuse which is not either unverifiable or self-contradictory.

Also, it may be ignorant to say that something is irrational when it isn't irrational...not something I want to push but I'm just throwing it out there.
Not pushing it is wise. ;)

Right. I tend to think that just about everybody is rational. The irrational ones get weeded out pretty quick. I know it makes people feel *really good about themselves* to dub others as irrational, and that's all I think that is. Ubermenschianism. Let's debate topics and not call people names. As I’ve said earlier, we are all rational about some things and irrational about others. When I say “irrational” I am only referring to the specific topic being discussed. I’m not talking about my irrational fear of cockroaches. If calling you irrational about God is an insult to you, then at least let it be a limited one. You can call me a coward about roaches without me considering that you think I am totally craven.

Make you a deal. If God is imaginary, oh well! Deal?
Um… I’m not sure I see the deal here. I get a posthumous apology from a person who I didn’t wish dead?

Since I don't think God is imaginary, and since just about everybody who prays also doesn't think that God is imaginary, a religious believer can be in absolute agreement with your above statement.
Yet God satisfies the description of imaginary beings. Not visible to others (as in do you see the same thing)? Check. Not audible (the same way) to others? Check. No objective evidence of His existence? Check.

What does it take for you to consider a thing imaginary?

I disagree. There may be a hell of a good reason for a person to talk to an imaginary friend, and if there is, I'm not going to call that person a name. If it gets the job done for them, that's great. I don't need to impose a label on others who have different needs than I do. Except the Ubermenschian thing, but that's in response to others who call other people names and it's done for rhetorical reasons.
I don’t consider calling someone “irrational” to be calling them a name. I freely admit that I am so in many ways. I consider it identifying a trait they have. One might say, “you are indecisive” if you observe them pondering over a menu after the waiter’s third visit. Is that the same as calling them a name?

And I don’t have a problem with irrational people. I’m married to one who believes in auras, karma and crystal healing, yet I love her dearly. I do wish she weren’t so irrational, but it does not keep me from loving her.

I agree. What's this need thing all about? Ya know. Search for truth. That kind of stuff. If it is my weakness to need to know the truth, then that’s my cross to bear (to borrow a metaphor).

I agree that you may have limitations that I and other religious believers do not have. Yep. I am limited by my inability to believe myths. Damn cross.

Since I don't think God is imaginary your point kind of goes right over me head.
Try it if you imagine God is imaginary. I can imagine God. Can you imagine the absence of God?

As for inquiries, the sort of inquiries I would engage with on this matter are not scientific inquiries. They're on a different level, and you can label those as you'd like as well. I think it's clear that I am comfortable in my belief in God. I'll take full responsibility for that. If I'm wrong, oh well.

Yep. Wasted a lot of your life in a fruitless pursuit. Oh well.

I think it is rational. Maybe you can say that I need to think that it is rational. If it's irrational, oh well.
As I say, you and I aren’t likely to agree on what is rational. If you’re right, oh well.

I sort of care. There are things I certainly care about a heck of a lot more.
Me too. I consider these boards a diversion. They are far from the most important thing in my life. But here we both are. Shall we joust?

Again you're trying to force me into a dichotomy. Either I care to the extent that you care, or I don't care at all. I think relatively speaking you can take my, I think, evident nonchalance as me not caring. But really, if I didn't care I don't think I'd be engaged in this whole rational/irrational thing. I do care in my own way. I don't care in the way that you care.
Fairly spoken. I have tried to corner you (this being a debate and all). But I will state clearly that I don’t think that your “caring” is an off/on thing. I think you care less than I about this particular issue. You almost certainly care more about other issues that I also agree are important. But in the interest of staying on topic, I present a situation where you can show you care more or you care less. I’d argue that is not truly a dichotomy, but a direction, and relative to this issue only.

[monty python]After all, if we are to argue, I must take up a position contrary to yours. [/monty python]

I'm more interested in whether or not my beliefs are objectively wrong, or objectively right. That means oodles more to me than this rational/irrational biz.
In my opinion, they are the same thing, yet both are sliding scales, not dichotomies.

Not in the way we would have it, no. Not in the way I *introduced* this thread, if you care to check the original post.

I don’ need no steeking original post. I’m on a roll here. ;)

Yet I doubt that you would take the extreme view that prayers have zero connection to results, just as you obviously agree that prayers do not have 100% correlation with results. You would seem to be somewhere in the middle. I’m admittedly pretty close to the “zero results” pole, but I will argue that my position is based on evidence. Yet I would also agree that I would be willing to shift positions if objective evidence came to light.

Not in the way we have it, no. God will not be forced to accede to our will in the way we would have him accede to our will.

That is not, and has never been my position. I am not trying to force God to do tricks for me. I just want evidence that he does something. Anything. So far, I have seen no evidence whatsoever.

No dictionary definition I checked (five in the past few minutes) attaches lack of evidence to irrationality. And I have no desire to go any further into this particular point. I see you want to be dogmatic about how to define rational and irrational, and I'm not interested in such dogma, other than to say what I just said...and I'll say it again. Five dictionary definitions or irrational. Not one which mentions the words evidence.

You are correct. The word they use is “reason”. You and I will not agree as to whether or not that means evidence.

I have admitted that one of my own assumptions by which I reason is that real things have evidence for them. I feel that if this assumption were discarded, then there would be no way of telling what is real. I’m funny that way.

RandFan

31st July 2006, 08:37 PM

You in fact are erecting the very straw man that you claim that you're not erecting by insisting that #1 below is true, when in fact you are interpreting some passages of scripture in a way that no Christians that I know of interpret it. I want to work with you here Bri. I'll change #1. There exist a number of scriptures in the Bible that clearly promise that God will answer all prayers --"all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive".

Would it be reasonable for a Christian to infer from this scripture that God can grant miracles? Not every, not all (even though it says "all things"). Is there anything in this scripture or any other that would limit God's power?

Why are there categories of prayer that are never answered?

The word "can" that I've embolden here usually means "can possibly" when used in this context. If you're using it in a different way, please clarify. Otherwise, you've already admitted that it's possible that belief in prayer influences events, then such a belief is rational by your own admission. All things are possible. It's possible for a person to fly by flapping his or her arms. That all things are possible does not mean that it is rational to believe all things. So, ok, it's not irrational to simply believe that something is possible. It is irrational to act in a way that is counter to logic and reason. There is no rational basis to believe that an act (prayer) that is not connected to events can influence those events.

Of course, you've obfuscated the term "irrational" by recently using phrases like "less rational" or "more rational" to make it difficult to tell exactly what you're saying... I am honestly and sincerely trying to be accommodating. Tricky made that distinction and you said you agreed that it was appropriate. Please be fair to me. If I make a mistake I apologize. I have admitted making mistakes in this thread and apologized. If I wanted to obfuscate I would not have admitted my mistake and I would not have appologized..

You've wisely added the parenthetical "as far as we know" to #2 which changes its implications drastically. No.

There are no unicorns (as far as we know).
The government is not out to get me (as far as I know).
There are no leprechauns (as far as we know).
Humans can't fly by flapping their hands (as far as we know).
Zeus doesn't live atop Mount Olympus (as far as we know.

1.) I have said over and over that I hold all beliefs provisionally.
2.) I have said over and over that all things are possible (that are not logically impossible).

The statement stands. It is a falsifiable claim and you are free to falsify it. I await your doing so. However, until you demonstrate that a human can fly by simply flapping his or her arms then the belief that it is more likely than not that someone actually can fly by flapping his or her arms will remain irrational.

#3 seems to be accurate. Wow, well hold me down and slap me silly. And mayonnaise on the elbow to cure colds doesn't work any better than chance. And it could work. Is it rational for me to put mayonnaise on my elbow?

#4 doesn't accurately describe prayer as Christians believe it, and even if it did, it doesn't seem to follow from the other statements except perhaps for very narrow definitions of "irrational" which would allow other beliefs that you have previously held to be rational to also be irrational. #4 is a premise. It isn't meant to accurately describe prayer as Christians believe it. It has nothing to do with that. Bri, #4 only applies to any Christian who believing that his disconnected actions has some likelihood of influencing events. The more a person believes that his actions (prayer) are likely to alter a course of events the more irrational his beliefs.

I can't make heads or tails of these two sentences. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more likely a person believes" so I'll wait to comment until you clarify. Also, please clarify what you mean by "can" in this case, if you mean something other than "can possibly." Person A: Believes that a rabbits foot might influence events but isn't fervent in his belief.
Person B: Believes that rabbits feet are far more likely than not to work and never leaves home without one.

Person B is more irrational than person A.

Finally, what definition of mine have you reworded here? I'm having difficulty finding it. I'll stop referring to it until I do.

RandFan

31st July 2006, 08:48 PM

Hmmm. I think there is a theoretical logic and reason behind the notion that prayer can effect an unrelated event. It happens to be a supernatural explanation. And there are supernatural explanations behind rabbits feet, four-leaf clover and horse shoes.

Seems to me that people who believes in God can, quite rationally, also believe in prayer. No more than people who believe in any other superstition can be rational.

So, are you saying that anyone who accepts, as a logical premise the notion that God exists is irrational to think that prayer might persuade God to effect an event? No more so than a schizophrenic who accepts, as a logical premise, that the voices inside his head can make it rain.

Or are you saying that anyone who accepts, as a premise, the notion that their God exists is irrational? Yes, a belief in God is quite irrational. That is my opinion.

RandFan

31st July 2006, 08:57 PM

So why are you trying to make a point out single verses then? Why not just say the Bible is incoherent? Because there are people who accept those verses.

To tell us that we should pray.Then why not simply tell us to pray?

No. I've already given the parts that should be read to understand Christian prayer. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to read. Most of the time would be spent in finding the verses actually, as opposed to reading them. Uh, how long would it take someone to find all of the necessary verses and how would that person be certain that he or she had all of the most important ones?

But I won't agree with #2. Sometimes the answer could be *wait*. Is that not an answer? Couldn't "no" be an answer? So, I'll rephrase the answer, God does not answer every prayers in the affirmative.

He answers all prayers in his own way, and sometimes the answer can be *no*. Like if I prayed that I be Jesus on Mondays and Wednesdays and Jesus be Jesus only on Saturdays but that I also be Jesus on Saturdays too and if the phone rings then my dog Hu-Chu is Jesus but not if the phone rings only twice in which case the phone is Jesus. I have conceded that those things that are not logically possible are exempt. Your argument is a waste of time. Let's stick with reasonable and logically possible requests.

With Matthew 18:19...WHY DID YOU LEAVE OUT VERSE 20 which completes the thought?

With Matthew 20:22, the verse directly preceding it says "have faith and do not waver". And does he say he say *WHEN* we will receive what we ask for? NO! So if a grieving father prays fervently all night for God to spare him his child and she dies, it was the father's fault?

RandFan

31st July 2006, 09:02 PM

Exactly, which is why I don't consider people who believe in Santa Claus to be irrational. I think that speaks for itself and it speaks volumes. What is irrational in your book?

Anacoluthon64

1st August 2006, 02:05 AM

I don't think you'll see that happen. Even Jesus, who supposedly could raise the dead, was never reputed to regrow an amputed (sic) limb. If you hold such a miracle as your standard of proof, you're safe from lapsing into belief again.A curious observation. Our best current understanding surely rates resurrection from death as a considerably more difficult task than regenerating a limb (c.f. stem cells, though it's early days yet).

In any case, believing prayer in and of itself to be capable of affecting the course of objective events is irrational for the same reason that believing that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow is irrational: each belief has an inordinately tiny probability of being true; in each case an extraordinarily problematical mechanism is required to bring about the reality of the belief, and in each case a violation of well-established understanding would occur.

Note that the above says nothing of the psychological, emotional and/or purported spiritual effects prayer may have on people.

So let us now join hands and pray that the sun shall rise in the East tomorrow.

'Luthon64

Ceritus

1st August 2006, 03:18 AM

One more thing Darat if you'd care to address...how would God handle situation 1 that I offered, in your opinion? Of course this assumes that God exists.

-Elliot

Let me break down my thoughts

1. If God did answer prayer, the mind absolutely boggles. If I prayed that the most beautiful woman in the world would fall in love with me, and 180982 other guys prayed the same thing, then what? If I prayed that I had all the money in the world, and another person prayed that they had enough money to survive, then what? If I prayed that I would never experience physical death, but my neighbor prays for me to die a painful death, then what?

1.) It could make 180982 women with different appearences for the 180982 men and appear to be the most beautiful woman in the world individually for each man and vice versa for the women. While making it impossible for these people to not meet their counterpart and fall in love.

It could make it so that there would be no need for money to survive and allow each person who prayed to have all the money in the world to obtain it for a brief period of time until they spent it....Or atleast allow every person to have special skills and the proper environment to make a wealthy living if they decided to act upon their desire of wealth.

It could allow you to die a very painful death and then be brought back to life moments after and force you to move locations so the neighbor is rid of you.

2. Given the above, it seems reasonable for God to *detach* himself from the whole prayer situation, dontcha think?

2.) If an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God existed it does not seem reasonable one bit.

When we pray, *we are rejecting power, not embracing it*. Prayer is different from, say, a superstition like the Ghost Dance. Various Indian groups performed the Ghost Dance because they believed in would exert power and control over God, who would then give benefits to them and resurrect their dead warriors and all that. Press the button, and X happens. *BUT CHRISTIANS DO NOT HAVE THIS EXPECTATION IN PRAYER*. Or, rather, they ought not to have that expectation. Christians reject superstition, the belief that God can be controlled if I just do A, B, and C. When we pray, we ask, we question, we praise, we think, we talk, all that. But it is not result orientated! If it was, *IT WOULD HAVE DISAPPEARED COMPELTELY, JUST AS THE GHOST DANCE DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY*.

3.) But in my opinion christians do expect to control their God. If a christian asks for forgiveness do they not expect to be forgiven even when they repeat the offense a second or third time? Do christians not try to "appease" their God by following scripture and expect it not to toss them into a lake of fire? When it comes to control the relationship between God and christians are very similar to that of a whore and a client of a whore. A whore appears to be the controlled and the client the master but in the end the client pays the whore and the whore gets what they wanted all along.

4. The Lord's Prayer, given to us by Jesus, contains all that anyone ought to need to know about the reality of prayer, for the Christian. It is directed to the Father. It is about the Father. It is not about us. It recognizes the relationship, and keeps our reality in perspective. His will be done, not ours. In the kind of prayer I often see ruminated about on this forum, we wonder why *OUR WILL* is not done when we pray. That is out of order. When we pray, we ask that *God's will* be done. Do we ask for things? Of course. Food, forgiveness, strength, all that stuff, culminating in deliverance from evil. Yet those requests are within the framework of God's will. Jesus prayed before the crucifixion, and God's will was done. *That's prayer*.

4.)Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

See... 3.)

As for the whole Gods "will" thing then obviously his will is not of good intention at times. What one may judge as good another could just as easily judge as bad as you have stated in 1.) with your prayer scenerio's which were completed by a mere mortal. Explain to me an exact deinifition of God's will. How is a person who has an abortion not God's will? What if the child to be born were to become the next hitler? What if God's will has already been set into place and whatever event or decision already made or about to be made has been forseen and dealt with since the creation of the universe?

Seems like a lot of words to describe something that could easily be described as non existant.

elliotfc

1st August 2006, 05:38 AM

A curious observation. Our best current understanding surely rates resurrection from death as a considerably more difficult task than regenerating a limb (c.f. stem cells, though it's early days yet).

I disagree actually. People have been resuscitated (I probably spelled that wrong), buried alive, had hearst zapped into beating again, etc. Also, with regenerating a limb, you're kind of materializing matter our of nowhere...unless...you think of it as cell growth at an obscene rate.

If we're talking about regenerating a limb over a period of time...let's say a week...we see analogues of that in nature. I get the idea that when people say why can't God regrow limbs or whatever, people are not thinking of something like that. But maybe I'm wrong?

In any case, believing prayer in and of itself to be capable of affecting the course of objective events is irrational for the same reason that believing that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow is irrational:

I'll work with this analogy...but let's me first make a point. Prayer is a *real thing*, as in, people know what prayer is. Even atheists know what prayer is, as they want to keep it out of schools. :) Objective events are also *real things*. The issue is cause/effect. Now...is the sun rising in the West a real thing? And there's no cause-effect to be identified in that situation. But whatever, here goes the analogy...

each belief has an inordinately tiny probability of being true;

I don't see how you can calculate probabilities with these two...that may be commensurate to inordinately tiny I guess.

in each case an extraordinarily problematical mechanism is required to bring about the reality of the belief,

It's problematic from *certain* points of view (I won't even say the human point of view because others would disagree). Reality doesn't care about whether or not a problematical mechanism is needed. Happen happens. Anyhow, problematic is a word needed by humans, and it's nothing more than that.

and in each case a violation of well-established understanding would occur.

I think it's well-established that specific prayers usually aren't answered in the exact way as the person praying asks? Does anyone in this thread disagree?

-Elliot

Bri

1st August 2006, 07:17 AM

I want to work with you here Bri. I'll change #1. There exist a number of scriptures in the Bible that clearly promise that God will answer all prayers --"all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive".

Emphasis is mine. I'm guessing that Christians note the word in red there, and consider it a condition. Again, the fact that you read the scripture as saying that God answers all prayers is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, which is about Christian belief. Even fundamentalists don't seem to interpret the scripture the way you have. In order for your conclusion to follow from your premise(s) you have to at some point make the leap from what is written to what is believed, which makes any interpretation of the scripture irrelevant to your conclusion without Christian belief to back it up.

Would it be reasonable for a Christian to infer from this scripture that God can grant miracles? Not every, not all (even though it says "all things"). Is there anything in this scripture or any other that would limit God's power?

I imagine that not only would it be reasonable for a Christian to infer this, but many Christians actually do infer from this scripture and others that God can grant miracles. Of course, few if any infer that he always grants miracles. I see nothing in that scripture that limits God's power (nor do I imagine most Christians believe that God's power is limited).

Why are there categories of prayer that are never answered?

God works in mysterious ways. God doesn't want us to know he exists. God only grants prayers that are ultimately for our own good. Take your pick. If those aren't good enough, I may be able to come up with more. If the Christian God exists, we likely couldn't know for certain what his reasons might be.

All things are possible. It's possible for a person to fly by flapping his or her arms. That all things are possible does not mean that it is rational to believe all things. So, ok, it's not irrational to simply believe that something is possible. It is irrational to act in a way that is counter to logic and reason. There is no rational basis to believe that an act (prayer) that is not connected to events can influence those events.

I may not personally believe that Christians have a good enough reason to believe that prayer influences events. But I have to admit that my judgement of their reasons is only my opinion -- it's not fact. I cannot claim their belief to be necessarily irrational, even though I may disagree with it. There are a lot of things that I disagree with that are perfectly rational. If I were to label all of them "irrational" then I would also have to label other beliefs that I think are rational as irrational as well.

I am honestly and sincerely trying to be accommodating. Tricky made that distinction and you said you agreed that it was appropriate. Please be fair to me. If I make a mistake I apologize. I have admitted making mistakes in this thread and apologized. If I wanted to obfuscate I would not have admitted my mistake and I would not have appologized.

I do understand that it wasn't your intention to obfuscate, and I apologize if I made it sound as though you did it on purpose. The terms "irrational" or "rational" would have to have some special meaning under Tricky's system (otherwise they would mean the same thing). Without something to compare them to (i.e. in conjunction with the words "more" or "less") the terms "rational" and "irrational" would either be meaningless, or else they would refer to one of the far ends of the scale, which is why I made the claim that the terms were obfuscated. Since you have continued to use the word "irrational" to describe belief in prayer while at the same time accepting Tricky's idea, then the question remains: what does "irrational" mean under this system other than "entirely irrational" (or at least at the far end of the scale on the "irrational" side)?

If you meant that prayer was at the far end of the scale, then it would necessarily be "less rational" than something you have labeled "rational" (which would be at the other end of the scale). If you're going to use the term "irrational" to describe belief in prayer, then you should provide some criteria by which you determine that belief in prayer is necessarily "less rational" than other beliefs you hold to be "rational."

No.

There are no unicorns (as far as we know).
The government is not out to get me (as far as I know).
There are no leprechauns (as far as we know).
Humans can't fly by flapping their hands (as far as we know).
Zeus doesn't live atop Mount Olympus (as far as we know.

1.) I have said over and over that I hold all beliefs provisionally.
2.) I have said over and over that all things are possible (that are not logically impossible).

The statement stands. It is a falsifiable claim and you are free to falsify it. I await your doing so. However, until you demonstrate that a human can fly by simply flapping his or her arms then the belief that it is more likely than not that someone actually can fly by flapping his or her arms will remain irrational.

Oh, I didn't disagree with the statement (with the provision included). I was just pointing out that because it is necessary to include the provision, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from this premise. I can add "there is no intelligent life outside of our solar system (as far as we know)" to the list, and (as you've already acknowledged) that fact doesn't preclude the belief that there is intelligent life outside the solar system from being rational.

Wow, well hold me down and slap me silly. And mayonnaise on the elbow to cure colds doesn't work any better than chance. And it could work. Is it rational for me to put mayonnaise on my elbow?

That would of course depend on whether you would expect there to be evidence. In the case of mayonnaise on the elbow, one might expect there to be evidence, but if one had a reason to believe that it was unfalsifiable, then it might be a rational belief. Lack of evidence isn't evidence of irrationality. You've already acknowledged that the premise "there is zero evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" wouldn't preclude the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system from being rational.

#4 is a premise. It isn't meant to accurately describe prayer as Christians believe it. It has nothing to do with that.

I apologize. I may have misread it the first time. At any rate, I see that it's a premise rather than a conclusion.

Bri, #4 only applies to any Christian who believing that his disconnected actions has some likelihood of influencing events. The more a person believes that his actions (prayer) are likely to alter a course of events the more irrational his beliefs.

Premise #4 said "Belief in an object or act (prayer) that is not related to a course of events that influences those events is irrational." You cannot show that prayer is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. Therefore, you cannot show that a belief in prayer is irrational, even if we accept the statement without the parenthetical as true. Because you included the parenthetical, it isn't necessarily true at all.

Person A: Believes that a rabbits foot might influence events but isn't fervent in his belief.
Person B: Believes that rabbits feet are far more likely than not to work and never leaves home without one.

Person B is more irrational than person A.

Again, it would depend on each individual's reasons for believing as they do. It is possible for person B to be more rational than person A. Person A might hold the belief for no apparent reason whatsoever. Person B might have done careful experiments in his basement and found that his rabbit's foot always works for him as long as nobody else is observing.

-Bri

Beth

1st August 2006, 07:22 AM

Yes, a belief in God is quite irrational. That is my opinion.

Okay. I think I'm clear on where you stand now. I disagree, but that's okay. We're both entitled to our opinions.

Beth

1st August 2006, 07:33 AM

A curious observation. Our best current understanding surely rates resurrection from death as a considerably more difficult task than regenerating a limb (c.f. stem cells, though it's early days yet). Yes it is a curious observation. But it fits with the observation that there are certain classes of prayers that are never answered. People do sometimes recover after being declared dead, while no one has ever regrown a severed limb.

In any case, believing prayer in and of itself to be capable of affecting the course of objective events

I don't think anyone believes that prayer in and of itself is capable of affecting the course of objective events. My understanding is that they believe prayer is capable of influencing God who in turn is capable of affecting events. If someone believes in God (leaving aside the rationality/irrationality of belief in God) believing that prayer can influence God does not seem irrational to me.

RandFan

1st August 2006, 07:34 AM

1. If God did answer prayer, the mind absolutely boggles. If I prayed that the most beautiful woman in the world would fall in love with me, and 180982 other guys prayed the same thing, then what? If I prayed that I had all the money in the world, and another person prayed that they had enough money to survive, then what? If I prayed that I would never experience physical death, but my neighbor prays for me to die a painful death, then what? This is, of course, simply setting up logical impossibilities. Can God create a rock to big for him/her to lift? By this paradox God is not omnipotent. This has been dealt with and Christians tell us that God can do anything that is not logically impossible. So if you are going to be consistent elliot you have two choices. God is omnipotent or he isn't. If you think he is then you will have to jettison this argument.

Anacoluthon64

1st August 2006, 07:48 AM

I disagree actually.That is your prerogative.

People have been resuscitated (I probably spelled that wrong), buried alive, had hearst zapped into beating again, etc.Yes, such resuscitations invariably happen within a short time span of clinical death. Similarly, severed limbs have been successfully grafted back onto their original owners, again within a short period after separation. Wonderful thing, this medical science.

Also, with regenerating a limb, you're kind of materializing matter our of nowhere...unless...you think of it as cell growth at an obscene rate.Either would be miraculous, don't you agree?

If we're talking about regenerating a limb over a period of time...let's say a week...we see analogues of that in nature.Yes, but not of complex structures on complex life forms. The arm of a starfish is hardly as complex as that of a person.

I get the idea that when people say why can't God regrow limbs or whatever, people are not thinking of something like that. But maybe I'm wrong?There's no reason to suppose that limb regrowth should occur instantaneously in order for it to qualify as miraculous. If it occurred at all it would be a wondrous thing.

I'll work with this analogy...but let's me first make a point. Prayer is a *real thing*, as in, people know what prayer is. Even atheists know what prayer is, as they want to keep it out of schools. :) Objective events are also *real things*. The issue is cause/effect. Now...is the sun rising in the West a real thing? And there's no cause-effect to be identified in that situation.Really? And if god decided (or some other mechanism managed) to change the Earth's sense of spin or flip the planet North-to-South? Clearly this is a real, objective thing, albeit one that is unlikely to eventuate.

I don't see how you can calculate probabilities with these two...that may be commensurate to inordinately tiny I guess.Nobody is calculating probabilities here - it is sufficient to say that they are close to nil.

It's problematic from *certain* points of view (I won't even say the human point of view because others would disagree). Reality doesn't care about whether or not a problematical mechanism is needed. Happen happens. Anyhow, problematic is a word needed by humans, and it's nothing more than that.Reality certainly does care very much about mechanisms; e.g. there is no known mechanism for attaining a temperature of 0° K or below. Attempting to chill to such temperatures is problematic irrespective of any point of view one might assume in respect of this endeavour.

I think it's well-established that specific prayers usually aren't answered in the exact way as the person praying asks? Does anyone in this thread disagree?Not I, though I would amend some of your chosen adjectives.

'Luthon64

RandFan

1st August 2006, 08:04 AM

Emphasis is mine. I'm guessing that Christians note the word in red there, and consider it a condition. So there are categories of prayer where the believer never believes? This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Again, the fact that you read the scripture as saying that God answers all prayers...Asked and answered Bri. This is your strawman. I'm not saying that God answers all prayers. I'm simply demonstrating some logical problems between scripture and belief.

I imagine that not only would it be reasonable for a Christian to infer this, but many Christians actually do infer from this scripture and others that God can grant miracles. If they were logically consistent they should infer from this scripture that God can grant and is as likely to grant one miracle as any other. In other words the scripture doesn't limit God's ability to grant miracles. On the contrary. It clearly points out that all miracles are possible. Yet we have a category of miracles that are never answered (a falsifiable claim). Please to falsify it.

{strawman snipped}

God works in mysterious ways. God doesn't want us to know he exists. God only grants prayers that are ultimately for our own good. Take your pick. If those aren't good enough, I may be able to come up with more. If the Christian God exists, we likely couldn't know for certain what his reasons might be. If the purpose of a miracle is to manifest god and we can't tell the miracles from the non-miracles then the purpose of prayer and miracles is for-naught. (please note emphasis)

I may not personally believe that Christians have a good enough reason to believe that prayer influences events. But I have to admit that my judgment of their reasons is only my opinion -- it's not fact. I cannot claim their belief to be necessarily irrational, even though I may disagree with it. There are a lot of things that I disagree with that are perfectly rational. If I were to label all of them "irrational" then I would also have to label other beliefs that I think are rational as irrational as well. Perhaps you should label your other beliefs irrational. This shouldn't be about not wanting to hurt your ego. If you have irrational beliefs then they are irrational. Just accept it.

Since you have continued to use the word "irrational" to describe belief in prayer while at the same time accepting Tricky's idea, then the question remains: what does "irrational" mean under this system other than "entirely irrational" (or at least at the far end of the scale on the "irrational" side)? Irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Just as wet means to a degree wet.

If you're going to use the term "irrational" to describe belief in prayer, then you should provide some criteria by which you determine that belief in prayer is necessarily "less rational" than other beliefs you hold to be "rational." I do hold irrational beliefs. And beliefs that are, to a degree, irrational. Not founded on logic and reason and without evidence is irrational. I don't have a problem admitting that I have irrational beliefs.

Oh, I didn't disagree with the statement (with the provision included). I was just pointing out that because it is necessary to include the provision, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from this premise. But that is wrong. It does follow from this premise. If I put mayonnaise on my elbow to cure my cold that is irrational because there is no known mechanism for mayonnaise to work and there is no evidence for mayonnaise to work (so far as we know). Now, if you want to put mayonnaise on your elbow to cure your cold then that is fine but it IS irrational. And again, it does work for people.

I can add "there is no intelligent life outside of our solar system (as far as we know)" to the list, and (as you've already acknowledged) that fact doesn't preclude the belief that there is intelligent life outside the solar system from being rational. {sigh} There is logic and reason to believe this. If you would like to state that there is a degree of irrationality to this belief I won't object.

There is a good likelihood that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system.
There is intelligent life outside of the solar system.
Prayer can influence the outcome of events.#1 is rational
#2 is, to a degree, irrational.
#3 is, to a much larger degree than #3, irrational.

Are we clear?

That would of course depend on whether you would expect there to be evidence. In the case of mayonnaise on the elbow, one might expect there to be evidence, but if one had a reason to believe that it was unfalsifiable, then it might be a rational belief. I hate going around and around. THERE IS NO REASON. That's the point.

Lack of evidence isn't evidence of irrationality. {sigh} Bri, I have conceded this over and over. Lack of reason is evidence of irrationality. Evidence is but one reason.

1.) No evidence.
2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.

This leaves "no reason" to believe that it does work. All that is left is faith. Faith in and of itself is not reason.

You've already acknowledged that the premise "there is zero evidence that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" wouldn't preclude the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system from being rational. But evidence ISN'T the only criteria. I have made that point many times. There must be SOME reason.

You cannot show that prayer is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. Fallacy. I can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. It's not my job to prove a negative. The claim is falsifiable. You are free to falsify it as you are free to falsify that mayonnaise on the elbow will cure colds.

Again, it would depend on each individual's reasons for believing as they do. There is no rational reason to believe. It's that simple Bri. If you have one we would all like to know it. All attempts to demonstrate that rabbits feet have anything to do with the outcome of events fails.

It is possible for person B to be more rational than person A. Person A might hold the belief for no apparent reason whatsoever. Person B might have done careful experiments in his basement and found that his rabbit's foot always works for him as long as nobody else is observing. But there is scientific explanation for this and Randi's million dollar challenge helps illustrate this. We can rationally assume, based on all logical evidence and reason that rabbits feet don't work.

Bri

1st August 2006, 10:43 AM

So there are categories of prayer where the believer never believes? This doesn't make a lot of sense.

Of course, you'd have to ask a Christian, but it could mean that it is possible for any prayer to be granted if your belief were perfect.

Asked and answered Bri. This is your strawman. I'm not saying that God answers all prayers. I'm simply demonstrating some logical problems between scripture and belief.

It's your strawman, regardless of how much you try to pin it on me. You keep insisting that the scripture must indicate that God answers all prayers. You listed this as one of four premises upon which you base your conclusion concerning Christian belief, even though your interpretation has little to do with Christian belief.

If they were logically consistent they should infer from this scripture that God can grant and is as likely to grant one miracle as any other.

Emphasis mine. One can logically infer that God is able to grant one miracle as any other. That anyone can infer from the scripture that God is as likely to grant one miracle as any other is your own wishful thinking. The scripture simply doesn't indicate that in the least.

In other words the scripture doesn't limit God's ability to grant miracles. On the contrary. It clearly points out that all miracles are possible. Yet we have a category of miracles that are never answered (a falsifiable claim). Please to falsify it.

Your "in other words" doesn't match what you're attempting to paraphrase. True, the scripture doesn't limit God's ability to grant miracles. Nor does it indicate that God must exercize his ability in order to grant all miracles.

If the purpose of a miracle is to manifest god and we can't tell the miracles from the non-miracles then the purpose of prayer and miracles is for-naught. (please note emphasis)

If the purpose of a miracle is to make clear God's existance to everyone in the world, then I would agree that the purpose of miracles would be for naught. If a Christian believes that miracles occur and that the only purpose of miracles is to make it clear to everyone in the world that God exists, then I would agree that this belief would be inconsistent with reality since it is obviously not clear to everyone in the world that God exists. I'm just not sure there are many (if any) Christians who believe this.

Perhaps you should label your other beliefs irrational. This shouldn't be about not wanting to hurt your ego. If you have irrational beliefs then they are irrational. Just accept it.

Unfortunately, it would also include beliefs that you and most others hold to be rational as well, and I don't want to hurt your ego either.

Irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Just as wet means to a degree wet.

I see, and rational means that there is a degree of rationality. I concede that all beliefs are both rational and irrational by those definitions. Unfortunately, those aren't very useful definitions.

I do hold irrational beliefs. And beliefs that are, to a degree, irrational. Not founded on logic and reason and without evidence is irrational. I don't have a problem admitting that I have irrational beliefs.

That's not what I said. I said that you'd have to label "irrational" beliefs that you hold as "rational" (or at least beliefs that you've previously stated are rational).

But that is wrong. It does follow from this premise. If I put mayonnaise on my elbow to cure my cold that is irrational because there is no known mechanism for mayonnaise to work and there is no evidence for mayonnaise to work (so far as we know). Now, if you want to put mayonnaise on your elbow to cure your cold then that is fine but it IS irrational. And again, it does work for people.

Both of your criteria have been shown not to hold for all beliefs that you have stated are rational. It is clear that one or the other doesn't hold about many beliefs including those commonly held by science, therefore I'm assuming that you mean that only one or the other must hold for something to be considered rational. Still, some beliefs that you hold to be rational don't meet either criteria.

{sigh} There is logic and reason to believe this. If you would like to state that there is a degree of irrationality to this belief I won't object.

OK, so now you have introduced a third criteria by which something may be more rational than something else: if there is logic and reason to believe it, it can be more rational than something for which there is no logic and (or?) no reason. Oddly, I think that's the criteria I had suggested previously, that if it's not inconsistent and there is a good reason to believe something, it is probably rational. But it's possible that you're confusing two commonly-used definition of the word "reason" (one being synonymous to "logic" and the other being "a basis or motive for a belief") so I'll hold off on commenting further until you've confirmed exactly what you mean by this third criteria. In further comments, you seem to be going back and forth between these two meanings of the word "reason."

There is a good likelihood that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system.
There is intelligent life outside of the solar system.
Prayer can influence the outcome of events.#1 is rational
#2 is, to a degree, irrational.
#3 is, to a much larger degree than #3, irrational.

Are we clear?

Words like "good liklihood" betray the fact that you don't really have any objective criteria by which you rank these items the way you did. Specifically, your ranking is based on assumptions that are debatable. In this case, it is undoubtedly possible that prayer influences the outcome of events, making #3 the most rational statement in the list (if by "can" you mean "can possibly" rather than "does").

Fallacy. I can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. It's not my job to prove a negative. The claim is falsifiable. You are free to falsify it as you are free to falsify that mayonnaise on the elbow will cure colds.

If you can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it then you cannot show that belief in rabbit's feet is necessarily irrational even if we accept your basic premise that belief that something not related to a course of events influences those events is irrational.

Also, whether or not a belief in a rabbit's foot is falsifiable would depend on the belief. For example, if the claim is that a rabbit's foot affects a course of events only when nobody else is observing, then it's not falsifiable.

But there is scientific explanation for this and Randi's million dollar challenge helps illustrate this. We can rationally assume, based on all logical evidence and reason that rabbits feet don't work.

That's true. I never said they do work, nor that it's irrational to assume that they don't. I said that belief that a rabbit's foot works isn't necessarily irrational.

-Bri

Tricky

1st August 2006, 12:41 PM

Bri, I have conceded this over and over. Lack of reason is evidence of irrationality. Evidence is but one reason.

1.) No evidence.
2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.
I gotta disagree with you here, RF. Both 2 and 3 are also evidence. consider:

2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
What does "known" mean? Many a Christian will contend that they "know" God, so the mechanism is "known". I would counter that such a statement defines faith, not knowledge. True knowledge must be demonstrable and objective, so in order to know a mechanism you must have evidence for that mechanism.

3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.
The attempt to demonstrate whether or not something works is the attempt to gather evidence that something works.

In my opinion, reason can never be divorced from evidence. I do not deny that this is because of my assumption that real things have evidence for them, but if someone wants to explain to me why this is a bad assumption, I'm willing to discuss it.

We can rationally assume, based on all logical evidence and reason that rabbits feet don't work.Rabbits feet do work. The person rubs the rabbits foot and they feel better because they believe that they have somehow influenced the universe. Prayer works in the exact same way.

Bri

1st August 2006, 01:44 PM

In my opinion, reason can never be divorced from evidence. I do not deny that this is because of my assumption that real things have evidence for them, but if someone wants to explain to me why this is a bad assumption, I'm willing to discuss it.

I tend to agree that all of the criteria RF presented all equate to the same criterion: evidence.

Perhaps where we disagree is that I don't think it necessarily irrational to hold a belief about an idea for which there is little or no objective evidence one way or the other, such as the belief in the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system, the belief that no gods exist, or the belief in the existence of a Deist God.

When objective evidence is lacking, we all hold opinions based on more subjective reasoning. As long as one doesn't hold such reasoning to be fact, I don't think all such opinions can be deemed irrational. The alternative is to be agnostic about everything for which there is no clear objective evidence.

-Bri

Tricky

1st August 2006, 03:00 PM

I tend to agree that all of the criteria RF presented all equate to the same criterion: evidence.

Perhaps where we disagree is that I don't think it necessarily irrational to hold a belief about an idea for which there is little or no objective evidence one way or the other, such as the belief in the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system, the belief that no gods exist, or the belief in the existence of a Deist God.
These are different things entirely. If intelligent life exists outside our solar system, there is evidence for it. Sadly we cannot access that evidence (if it exists) but if we were in the vicinity of extraterrestrial intelligence, we would know what to look for. We would have a good idea about the nature of the evidence, because we have a good definition of what intelligence is and how it manifests itself. The evidence would be accessible in the same ways we access evidence locally.

This cannot be said of the existence of a Deist God. You could go to the ends of the universe, (theoretically) looking for one, but you still would not know what to look for.

So if you equate the lack of (discovered) evidence for extra-solar life versus the lack of (discovered) evidence for God, you must either agree that the evidence for extra-solar life is not even potentially knowable, or that the evidence for God is potentially knowable.

Now I will not deny that it is possible that we may someday discover some method for recognizing the evidence for God, but considering how long people have been searching for God, His supposed proximity, His supposed influence on everything, and his purported interest in humanity, the total lack of evidence for Him is pretty damning.

When objective evidence is lacking, we all hold opinions based on more subjective reasoning. As long as one doesn't hold such reasoning to be fact, I don't think all such opinions can be deemed irrational. The alternative is to be agnostic about everything for which there is no clear objective evidence.
I think you should be agnostic about everything for which there is no clear objective evidence. Going back to your extraterrestrial life example, there is evidence for life in our solar system. There is evidence of many times many other solar systems like ours, so you might reasonably extrapolate that there is a good chance of our situation being repeated. Nevertheless, it would be correct to be agnostic as the nature of a space alien (without better evidence than what we have).

But there is no such corollary for God. We cannot say, "God exists on Earth, so He might exist elsewhere." There is no evidence for even a single God, so there is no evidence to extrapolate. And yet, believers in God not only believe He exists, but that they know a good bit about His nature.

I can tell you what evidence intelligent extraterrestrials might potentially leave. Can you tell me what evidence God might potentially leave?

RandFan

1st August 2006, 04:49 PM

Of course, you'd have to ask a Christian, but it could mean that it is possible for any prayer to be granted if your belief were perfect. I don't know what that means.

It's your strawman, regardless of how much you try to pin it on me.Since it's not an argument that I have made then no.

Emphasis mine. One can logically infer that God is able to grant one miracle as any other. One can grant that anything is possible.

That anyone can infer from the scripture that God is as likely to grant one miracle as any other is your own wishful thinking. No. But I understand that is what makes you feel better.

Nor does it indicate that God must exercize his ability in order to grant all miracles. No one is arguing that it does. Only that since his ability is not limited and yet he never answers a category of prayer then we have a problem.

If the purpose of a miracle is to make clear God's existance to everyone in the world, then I would agree that the purpose of miracles would be for naught. :)

miracle
n 1: any amazing or wonderful occurrence 2: a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God We are in agreement.

Unfortunately, it would also include beliefs that you and most others hold to be rational as well, and I don't want to hurt your ego either. My ego won't be hurt. If my beliefs are irrational I can accept that. It really is a trivial matter.

I see, and rational means that there is a degree of rationality. I concede that all beliefs are both rational and irrational by those definitions. Unfortunately, those aren't very useful definitions. Not quite my definition but in any event quite useful. When is day not night? There is a gradient. Some people are more rational than others.

That's not what I said. I said that you'd have to label "irrational" beliefs that you hold as "rational" (or at least beliefs that you've previously stated are rational). If that is truly the case then I don't have any problem with it. Big deal. Point out an irrational belief and if it fits the definition then I will accept it, and perhaps reevaluate my belief. All this hand wringing over the definition of irrational is quite silly. It is simple and logical to determine what is and is not rational.

Both of your criteria have been shown not to hold for all beliefs that you have stated are rational. ? I don't have a clue what you are talking about. You assert these things from out of the blue, huh?

It is clear that one or the other doesn't hold about many beliefs including those commonly held by science... Like what?

Still, some beliefs that you hold to be rational don't meet either criteria.Like what?

OK, so now you have introduced a third criteria by which something may be more rational than something else No, evidence is reason. A mechanism is reason.

if there is logic and reason to believe it, it can be more rational than something for which there is no logic and (or?) no reason. If there is no logic and no reason it is not rational.

Oddly, I think that's the criteria I had suggested previously, that if it's not inconsistent and there is a good reason to believe something But it's possible that you're confusing two commonly-used definition of the word "reason" (one being synonymous to "logic" and the other being "a basis or motive for a belief") so I'll hold off on commenting further until you've confirmed exactly what you mean by this third criteria. Thank you. This is a fair request. Wanting there to be a Santa Claus is a reason to believe in Santa Claus (see #1 below). This is NOT how I'm using the word reason.

rea·son
n.

The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=because). See Usage Note at why (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=why).
A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime.
The capacity for logical, rational, and analytic thought; intelligence.
Good judgment; sound sense.
A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason.
Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument.Let's stick with #3. When I say reason it will be that definition. I will try to be very careful with my use of that word.

Words like "good liklihood" betray the fact that you don't really have any objective criteria by which you rank these items the way you did.This is so frustrating. I'm honestly trying. I've retyped this response like 6 times. I'm stripping out all of the emotion. {deep breath}.

Can I ask you a favor? Would you avoid words like "betray"? It isn't applicable here. I'll confess that my words aren't always the best to convey my meaning so I will try and be careful.

Ok, I don't know how much you know about probabilities. We both agree that all things are possible, right? Would you agree that not all things are equally probable?

Odds of intelligent life outside of our solar system: See Drake Equation. If we assume Drake's equation (http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html) and we assume that there are 100 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy then the odds are that there are at least 1,000 communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

Bri, that is logic, that is reason (#3).

Specifically, your ranking is based on assumptions that are debatable.No, not reasonably debatable.

In this case, it is undoubtedly possible that prayer influences the outcome of events... Anything is possible. Is it probable? Can you calculate the probability? What is the logic and reason that you use to arrive at your conclusion?

...making #3 the most rational statement in the list (if by "can" you mean "can possibly" rather than "does"). This has really got me stumped. I'll admit I have thought about this one long and hard. And I can't think of any reason for you to come up with your conclusion.

#1 is possible and there is a means to calculate the probability.
#2 is believing that there is enough probability to come to a conclusion.
#3 has no reason (#3), no evidence, and no logic to believe it.

Yes, all are possible. Why in your mind is #3 more rational?

If you can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it then you cannot show that belief in rabbit's feet is necessarily irrational even if we accept your basic premise that belief that something not related to a course of events influences those events is irrational.? Again, I'm stumped. You use the definition of irrational belief to prove that the belief is not necessarily irrational? This is twisted and upside down logic. I can't begin to get my head around it. If A = B then B !=B Huh?

Also, whether or not a belief in a rabbit's foot is falsifiable would depend on the belief. For example, if the claim is that a rabbit's foot affects a course of events only when nobody else is observing, then it's not falsifiable. True, but it is silly and irrational. Would you trust someone who asserted that he could fly by flapping his arms when you were not looking?

That's true. I never said they do work, nor that it's irrational to assume that they don't. I said that belief that a rabbit's foot works isn't necessarily irrational. It is. By definition. It is.

Bri

1st August 2006, 04:59 PM

These are different things entirely. If intelligent life exists outside our solar system, there is evidence for it.

Not a very compelling argument, unfortunately. If God exists, there is evidence for it if he chooses to make himself known. And although we might fail to recognize the evidence for intelligent life if it is significantly different than us, an omnipotent God could ensure that we would recognize his existence if he so chose.

BTW, I believe RandFan mentioned in a previous post his opinion that belief in the Deist God is rational while belief in the Christian God isn't (which is why I mentioned the Deist God).

So if you equate the lack of (discovered) evidence for extra-solar life versus the lack of (discovered) evidence for God, you must either agree that the evidence for extra-solar life is not even potentially knowable, or that the evidence for God is potentially knowable.

Both are potentially knowable if they exist.

I think you should be agnostic about everything for which there is no clear objective evidence. Going back to your extraterrestrial life example, there is evidence for life in our solar system.

While it is true that there is evidence of intelligent life in our solar system, I believe the question was about the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

There is evidence of many times many other solar systems like ours, so you might reasonably extrapolate that there is a good chance of our situation being repeated.

And yet there still is no evidence of it. There are plenty of teapots on our planet. Can one reasonably extrapolate that there is one orbitting Saturn?

Nevertheless, it would be correct to be agnostic as the nature of a space alien (without better evidence than what we have).

What is the difference between space aliens and intelligent life outside of our solar system?

But there is no such corollary for God. We cannot say, "God exists on Earth, so He might exist elsewhere." There is no evidence for even a single God, so there is no evidence to extrapolate. And yet, believers in God not only believe He exists, but that they know a good bit about His nature.

So, if something exists in one place, it would be rational to believe that it exists elsewhere, such as a teapot orbitting Saturn? We'd even know what to look for if we found it (which was another criteria you suggested above).

I can tell you what evidence intelligent extraterrestrials might potentially leave. Can you tell me what evidence God might potentially leave?

I can tell you that it wouldn't matter what evidence God might leave. If an omnipotent being wanted us to know of his existence, there would be no question of our recognizing the evidence. On the other hand, if an extra terrestrial were significantly different than we are, you would have no idea what sorts of evidence one might leave. On the other hand, it would be very clear what would constitute evidence of a teapot orbitting Saturn.

-Bri

RandFan

1st August 2006, 05:06 PM

I gotta disagree with you here, RF. Both 2 and 3 are also evidence. consider:

2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
What does "known" mean? Many a Christian will contend that they "know" God, so the mechanism is "known". I would counter that such a statement defines faith, not knowledge. True knowledge must be demonstrable and objective, so in order to know a mechanism you must have evidence for that mechanism.

3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.
The attempt to demonstrate whether or not something works is the attempt to gather evidence that something works.

In my opinion, reason can never be divorced from evidence. I do not deny that this is because of my assumption that real things have evidence for them, but if someone wants to explain to me why this is a bad assumption, I'm willing to discuss it.

Rabbits feet do work. The person rubs the rabbits foot and they feel better because they believe that they have somehow influenced the universe. Prayer works in the exact same way. Thanks tricky. Good post.

1.) There is no objective/empirical evidence.
2.) No known mechanism (no logical connection).
3.) It flies in the face of all attempts to demonstrate that it does work.

All 3 are evidence that it doesn't work. Yes, you are correct.

For a long time it was a said that a bumble bee couldn't fly because it seemingly defied our understanding of the laws of physics as the govern flight. In other words the bumble bee seemed to lack #2.

Only idiots said that though, bumble bees CAN fly because I can observe them flying, others can observe them flying. It is empirical. That is #1.

There are many things that we don't have empirical evidence for but we do have logic, reason and an understood mechanism for them so we can infer them to be probable and calculate the likelihood of them. This is what Einstein did when he formulated E=MC2.

The theory of relativity is not equal to prayer.

Give me a Drake's equation for prayer? Give me an E=MC2 equivalent for prayer and I will call it rational.

RandFan

1st August 2006, 05:15 PM

So, if something exists in one place, it would be rational to believe that it exists elsewhere, such as a teapot orbitting Saturn? We'd even know what to look for if we found it (which was another criteria you suggested above). Fallacy, there is no teapot orbiting any planet that we know of so it would be irrational to assume that one would be orbiting Saturn. That is not how logic and reason work.

Question: How many stars are in the Milky Way Galaxy?
Answer: Current estimates are 100 billion.

Question: What percentage of stars have planetary systems?
Answer: Current estimates range from 20% to 50%.

Question: For each star that does have a planetary system, how many planets are capable of sustaining life?
Answer: Current estimates range from 1 to 5.

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

Question: What percentage of intelligent races have the means and the desire to communicate?
Answer: 10% to 20%

Question: For each civilization that does communicate, for what fraction of the planet's life does the civilization survive?

Answer: This is the toughest of the questions. If we take Earth as an example, the expected lifetime of our Sun and the Earth is roughly 10 billion years. So far we've been communicating with radio waves for less than 100 years. How long will our civilization survive? Will we destroy ourselves in a few years like some predict or will we overcome our problems and survive for millennia? If we were destroyed tomorrow the answer to this question would be 1/100,000,000th. If we survive for 10,000 years the answer will be 1/1,000,000th.

That is logic and reason. Not exact science. Certainly not proof that there is life outside of our solar system but it is logic and reason based on our understanding of our natural world and our universe.

There is no such logic for prayer. It is predicated ONLY on faith and the notion that anything is possible.

RandFan

1st August 2006, 05:49 PM

Bri,

I really don't understand your POV. I've tried but I just can't. Even when I was a true believer I understood that prayer was the realm of faith and not logic and reason (#3).

In the past people believed the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and that blood letting was an effective medial procedure for many ailments that we now rely on modern medicine for.

We made progress because we gave up a lot of irrational thinking. And believe me it wasn't always easy to give it up. But scientists used empericsim, logic and reason (#3) to jetison such irrational beliefs and replace them with rational ones.

Yes, it is possible that you can be healed with blood letting. It is possible that the Sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat. Those things are possible.

Why should we believe them?

I doubt I will change your mind so I'm not certain how much longer to carry this on. My mind can be changed but it will take logic and reason (#3) and so far you haven't given me that logic and reason.

It is appropriate to identify what is irrational because irrational thought doesn't advance our culture or our understanding of the natural world. And what is and isn't rational isn't simply a matter of opinion. It is looking at the evidence and weighing the probabilities. When the odds are heavily against a belief and there is no evidence in support of that belief while there is evidence against the belief and there is no logical and natural basis for the belief then it is irrational.

Bri

1st August 2006, 07:07 PM

Fallacy, there is no teapot orbiting any planet that we know of so it would be irrational to assume that one would be orbiting Saturn. That is not how logic and reason work.

So its rational to believe that there is a teapot ON Saturn, but not orbitting Saturn.

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

And here we can see the subjective nature of Drake's equation. We know of only one planet that is captable of sustaining life where life has actually evolved. Where is the objective evidence for any number you place here? There is none.

I've seen mathematical equations that supposedly calculate the probability of God's existence. Unfortunately, the variables are subjective, just like Drake's.

You don't really think you can use these sorts of equations to accurately calculate the probability of the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system much less the existence of God, do you? Given the subjective nature of these sorts of calculations, can you really accurately calculate the probability of either one in order to proclaim it a fact that one is more rational than the other?

There is no such logic for prayer. It is predicated ONLY on faith and the notion that anything is possible.

Unfortunately, if being able to calculate an exact probability of anything were necessary for it to be rational, nothing would be rational. Nor does the fact that belief in prayer is based on faith preclude it from being rational any more than the belief that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system (which is also based on faith) is precluded from being rational.

Not to mention the fact that we hold entirely subjective opinions all the time. I am of the opinion that black licorice is better than red. Is it irrational for me to believe so?

-Bri

Bri

1st August 2006, 07:12 PM

I really don't understand your POV. I've tried but I just can't. Even when I was a true believer I understood that prayer was the realm of faith and not logic and reason (#3).

Of course belief in prayer is based on faith (as are all opinions) since it cannot be proven or disproven. But that doesn't mean that it's illogical or unreasonable to hold an opinion about prayer, even if your opinion is that it might work. That's all I'm saying.

In the past people believed the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth and that blood letting was an effective medial procedure for many ailments that we now rely on modern medicine for.

Oddly, those who claimed that to believe something other than what was currently thought to be true was irrational used arguments very similar to yours. While it is now perhaps irrational to hold the view that the world is flat, before evidence to the contrary was discovered it was considered "irrational" to be of the opinion that the world was round (and your argument was probably used to support it).

We made progress because we gave up a lot of irrational thinking. And believe me it wasn't always easy to give it up. But scientists used empericsim, logic and reason (#3) to jetison such irrational beliefs and replace them with rational ones.

Yes, it is possible that you can be healed with blood letting. It is possible that the Sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is flat. Those things are possible.

Why should we believe them?

I never said that we should believe them. I didn't say that we should believe in prayer either. I said that a belief in prayer isn't necessarily irrational.

I doubt I will change your mind so I'm not certain how much longer to carry this on. My mind can be changed but it will take logic and reason (#3) and so far you haven't given me that logic and reason.

And it isn't my intention to do so since I happen to agree with you concerning the quality and amount of evidence that prayer works. I don't personally have reason to believe that prayer works. However, many Christians apparently do, perhaps through personal experience. Therefore, the Christian belief in prayer is not necessarily irrational, no matter how much I may disagree with it.

It is appropriate to identify what is irrational because irrational thought doesn't advance our culture or our understanding of the natural world.

Unless it is later proven to be true, such as your examples of "irrational thought" above, like the earth being round instead of flat.

And what is and isn't rational isn't simply a matter of opinion. It is looking at the evidence and weighing the probabilities. When the odds are heavily against a belief and there is no evidence in support of that belief while there is evidence against the belief and there is no logical and natural basis for the belief then it is irrational.

By your criteria, before there was evidence to support the fact that the earth is round, the opinion that the earth was flat was irrational (and it wouldn't have been simply a matter of opinion that it was irrational).

There is no evidence against at least some Christian beliefs in prayer, specifically those in conjunction with belief in a God who doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. I'm just not sure how you can accurately calculate the probability of such a belief being true. Unfortunately, it is simply a matter of opinion whether these beliefs are more or less rational than other opinions that you hold to be rational.

-Bri

RandFan

1st August 2006, 08:08 PM

So its rational to believe that there is a teapot ON Saturn, but not orbitting Saturn. This is just a strawman since no one is making this argument.

And here we can see the subjective nature of Drake's equation.I'm not sure of your use of the word "subjective". Could you define your usage of the word. It is true that Drake's Equation is purely theoretical, abstract. It is of the mind. Is that what you mean?

We know of only one planet that is captable of sustaining life where life has actually evolved. Where is the objective evidence for any number you place here? There is none. There is no direct evidence that there is intelligent life on other planets. Be careful here my friend. There was no direct evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity either. I never said that there had to be direct evidence. Only logic and reason (#3). Drake's equation is logic and reason based on observations of real world phenomenon. It is irrational if there is no evidence, no mechanism (no logical connection) and no logic and reason (#3) to suppose that it is true.

I've seen mathematical equations that supposedly calculate the probability of God's existence. Unfortunately, the variables are subjective, just like Drake's.I hesitate to respond since I'm not certain as to your usage of the word. The equations are abstract as were Einstein's theories as were Euclid's, Newton's, Bohr's and others but that they were of the mind does not mean that they were purely subjective. The math can be objectively checked. I suggest you think carefully about that one. If you are honestly suggesting that theoretical science is simply subjective then I would say that you are ignorant of theoretical science, logic, math and philosophy. 1+1=2 and 1+1=3 are two abstract equations. One is rational and the other isn't.

FWIW, there is no such math to calculate the probability of God's existence.

You don't really think you can use these sorts of equations to accurately calculate the probability of the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system... No one said "accurately" on a degree of probability and bear in mind Drakes Equations only take into account a single galaxy.

To answer your question, we can calculate a reasonable probability for the existence of intelligent life in our galaxy.

...much less the existence of God, do you? There is no reasonable equation to calculate the probability of God. Please to share one with us and I will demonstrate why the equation is spurious.

Given the subjective nature...I think the word you are looking for is speculative.

...of these sorts of calculations, can you really accurately calculate the probability of either one in order to proclaim it a fact that one is more rational than the other? You are conflating two things that can't be conflated.

What is the Drake Equation? (http://www.setileague.org/general/drake.htm)

The Drake Equation, as it came to be known, was formulated in 1961 and is generally accepted by the scientific community. If there were such an equation for God it could be generally accepted by the scientific community. The problem is there is no logic or reason (#3) to consider such equations.

To answer your question as it relates to advanced civilizations besides those on earth I would not use the term "accurately". Your insistence of that word is a straw man. I would say to a degree of probability the answer would be yes.

To answer your question as it relates to god the answer regardless of accuracy or degree of probability the answer is no.

Unfortunately, if being able to calculate an exact probability of anything were necessary for it to be rational... "Exact probability"? Your strawman are procreating. No one has suggested an exact probability that is in your head.

...the fact that belief in prayer is based on faith preclude it from being rational... Lacking any empirical evidence, mechanism, or real world logic and reason then a belief that a logically unconnected act (prayer) can influence events is irrational.

Not to mention the fact that we hold entirely subjective opinions all the time. I am of the opinion that black licorice is better than red. Is it irrational for me to believe so? No one but you is discussing the subjective. You'll have to have that debate with yourself.

Bri

1st August 2006, 08:24 PM

No one is arguing that it does. Only that since his ability is not limited and yet he never answers a category of prayer then we have a problem.

What problem?

:)

We are in agreement.

You snuck the word "miracle" in there, when we aren't necessarily talking about miracles by that definition since it is possible to believe in prayer without believing in miracles by that definition. However, I suspected you might bring up that definition, and was careful with my wording. I doubt any Christian who believes in miracles also believes that the purpose of a miracle is to make it clear to everyone in the world that God exists. Even if the purpose is to make it clear to some people (those who believe, those who witness the miracle, etc.), the purpose is not necessarily to make it clear to everyone, even by the definition you cited.

To believe that an omnipotent being exists who wants everyone in the world to know of his existence is indeed irrational given that not everyone in the world knows of the existence of such a being. So, if there are Christians who believe that God wants everyone in the world to know of his existence, I'll agree that those Christians are irrational in their belief.

My ego won't be hurt. If my beliefs are irrational I can accept that. It really is a trivial matter.

As can I. Still, you have made some statements about which beliefs you think are rational and which are irrational. As such, any criteria by which you consider something irrational shouldn't apply to something that you consider rational or else the words don't have much meaning.

Not quite my definition but in any event quite useful. When is day not night? There is a gradient. Some people are more rational than others.

Very well then. We are in agreement. All beliefs are rational, including the Christian belief in prayer. Case closed!

If that is truly the case then I don't have any problem with it. Big deal. Point out an irrational belief and if it fits the definition then I will accept it, and perhaps reevaluate my belief. All this hand wringing over the definition of irrational is quite silly. It is simple and logical to determine what is and is not rational.

Yes, it's extremely simply to determine what is and is not rational...ALL beliefs are and are not rational by the definition above.

This is so frustrating. I'm honestly trying. I've retyped this response like 6 times. I'm stripping out all of the emotion. {deep breath}.

Can I ask you a favor? Would you avoid words like "betray"? It isn't applicable here. I'll confess that my words aren't always the best to convey my meaning so I will try and be careful.

My concern isn't with emotion. It's with objective evidence. Words like "good liklihood" are subjective rather than objective. I do understand what you mean, but you aren't going to find any objective criteria for determining that one opinion that you call "rational" is necessarily more rational than another opinion that you call "irrational." There is no magic formula for objectively determining the probability of any opinion being true. Drake's equation pretty much demonstrates this since you have displaced the argument to one about the rationality of choosing particular values for the variables.

This has really got me stumped. I'll admit I have thought about this one long and hard. And I can't think of any reason for you to come up with your conclusion.

This is a minor point, because I think you simply misworded Statement #3 (or worded it in an ambiguous way). Statement #3 (that prayer can influence the outcome of events) is a fact -- it is without a doubt possible that prayer influences the outcome of at least some events. Therefore, compared to #1 (that there is a good likelihood that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system) it is clear that to believe a fact over a "good liklihood" should be more rational. However, I think you may have actually meant "prayer does influence the outcome of events" rather than "prayer can influence the outcome of events." In this case, it is a matter of opinion as to which of #2 and #3 is more rational, although I tend to agree with your opinion on the matter.

#1 is possible and there is a means to calculate the probability.
#2 is believing that there is enough probability to come to a conclusion.
#3 has no reason (#3), no evidence, and no logic to believe it.

It can be argued that #2 has no evidence. It can be argued that #3 may have reason (#3) as in "a Christian has reason to believe that prayer can influence the outcome of events." I'm not sure what you mean by "no logic" other than to slip in a synonym for "irrational." Both are "logical" statements in that either can be true.

? Again, I'm stumped. You use the definition of irrational belief to prove that the belief is not necessarily irrational? This is twisted and upside down logic. I can't begin to get my head around it. If A = B then B !=B Huh?

Your premise is that belief in something is irrational IF it is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. However, you admitted that you CANNOT show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. Therefore, even if we accept your premise, you cannot use it to show that belief in rabbit's feet is irrational.

It is. By definition. It is.

No, a belief in rabbit's feet is not necessarily irrational by definition, as demonstrated above.

-Bri

RandFan

1st August 2006, 08:34 PM

Of course belief in prayer is based on faith (as are all opinions) since it cannot be proven or disproven. But that doesn't mean that it's illogical or unreasonable to hold an opinion about prayer, even if your opinion is that it might work. That's all I'm saying. You keep saying a "belief in prayer". I can't really respond because I don't know what that means.

Oddly, those who claimed that to believe something other than what was currently thought to be true was irrational used arguments very similar to yours. Citation please?

While it is now perhaps irrational to hold the view that the world is flat, before evidence to the contrary was discovered it was considered "irrational" to be of the opinion that the world was round (and your argument was probably used to support it). The two are not equal because now we have evidence to the contrary. We have calculations that contradict the view that the world is flat. We have reason to believe that the world is round. Using logic we can deduct that the world is round.

See, that is the problem. You are correct that what was once considered irrational was actually true. However the evidence is mounting and the facts are moving in one direction.

Let me state, one more time, that I hold positions provisionally. I could be wrong about any and everything. However there is a large body of evidence and the truths have held up to rational thought, logic and reason. After all of this time it is reasonable to conclude that age old notions like a flat earth are irrational. It is not rational and it is not reasonable (tautology?) to conclude that the earth is flat.

I never said that we should believe them. I didn't say that we should believe in prayer either. I said that a belief in prayer isn't necessarily irrational. Again, I'm not certain what you mean by a "belief in prayer". Believing that an unrelated act influenced events is irrational.

By your criteria, before there was evidence to support the fact that the earth is round, the opinion that the earth was flat was irrational (and it wouldn't have been simply a matter of opinion that it was irrational). Before there was evidence to support the fact that the earth is round the opinion that the earth was flat was rational but not true. That is the problem. We have a lot of evidence, logic and reason to suppose that it is not true.

There is no evidence against at least some Christian beliefs in prayer, specifically those in conjunction with belief in a God who doesn't want us to know for certain of his existence. I'm just not sure how you can accurately calculate the probability of such a belief being true. If it is that an unrelated act (prayer) influences events then that would be irrational.

I'm tired.

I will grant you your long argued position that an opinion that unrelated acts can possibly alter events is not necessarily irrational.

But that is it.

I think you've sustained that much.

RandFan

1st August 2006, 08:37 PM

Out to lunch.

RandFan

1st August 2006, 09:17 PM

What problem? It's a white elephant in the room if you can't see it I can't make you see it.

You snuck the word "miracle" in there... I snuck it?

Let's see, you said:

If the purpose of a miracle is to make clear God's existance to everyone in the world, then I would agree that the purpose of miracles would be for naught. :rolleyes: Odd, it sure looks like you used the word miracle. Maybe it is just my eyes.

Very well then. We are in agreement. All beliefs are rational, including the Christian belief in prayer. Case closed! Non-sequitur.

Yes, it's extremely simply to determine what is and is not rational...ALL beliefs are and are not rational by the definition above. No, by your logic day = night. :( Not all beliefs are equally probable. The more light the more day it is. The more likely the belief to be true the more rational. Noon is daytime and a belief in gravity is rational. Midnight is night and a belief that rabbits feet can alter unconnected events is irrational.

...it is without a doubt possible that prayer influences the outcome of at least some events. Curiouser and curiouser. It is without a doubt possible that prayer influences the outcome of ALL events.

It is no more probable that prayer influences some events than it does all events.

Therefore, compared to #1 (that there is a good likelihood that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system) it is clear that to believe a fact over a "good liklihood" should be more rational. "Fact"? What "fact"?

It can be argued that #2 has no evidence.But it does have logic and reason.

It can be argued that #3 may have reason (#3) as in "a Christian has reason to believe that prayer can influence the outcome of events." We are all waiting breathlessly for this reason. Please don't keep us in suspense.

However, you admitted that you CANNOT show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it.This is fallacy. The inability to prove a negative doesn't render the irrational rational. I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. It is still not rational to believe in Santa Claus. The fact is that there is no logical connection. That is a falsifiable claim btw and I note that you have not yet falsified it. That all things are possible doesn't mean that all things are probable. Just because it is possible that the real world doesn't exist doesn't mean that it is probable that the real world doesn't exist.

Therefore, even if we accept your premise, you cannot use it to show that belief in rabbit's feet is irrational. Sorry, if we used your logic there would be no such thing as superstitions. And there are.

No, a belief in rabbit's feet is not necessarily irrational by definition, as demonstrated above. Not according to the dictionary.

Bri

2nd August 2006, 08:01 AM

I'm not sure of your use of the word "subjective". Could you define your usage of the word. It is true that Drake's Equation is purely theoretical, abstract. It is of the mind. Is that what you mean?

Subjective (as opposed to "objective") means "particular to a given person; personal." The choices of values for the variables are based on personal opinion rather than any scientific consensus or known fact.

There is no direct evidence that there is intelligent life on other planets. Be careful here my friend. There was no direct evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity either. I never said that there had to be direct evidence. Only logic and reason (#3). Drake's equation is logic and reason based on observations of real world phenomenon. It is irrational if there is no evidence, no mechanism (no logical connection) and no logic and reason (#3) to suppose that it is true.

Emphasis mine. I think you meant "or" rather than "and" since you've already admitted that there are many things (gravity for example) which are rational to believe in but have no known mechanism.

First, and most important, Drake's equation doesn't calculate the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy. It returns the number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy given the probability of intelligent life existing in the galaxy as input (particularly variables fl, fi, fc, and fL).

Second, when I said that Drake's equation is subjective, I meant that although the math might be accurate, the subjectivity is simply removed one level to the variables. You claim that the equation is "based on observations of real world phenomenon" but there are no objective criteria by which you choose the value of most of the variables. Specifically, I would also be interested in knowing exactly what observations of real world phenomenon you used to give variables fl, fi, fc, and fL (the ones where you provide the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the galaxy) of Drake's equation values other than 0% (which might at least be backed up by evidence since there is no evidence whatsoever of life outside of our solar system). Sure, it can be argued that the values should at least be greater than 0% even if very low, but the same can be true of prayer and almost anything else that's possible.

FWIW, there is no such math to calculate the probability of God's existence.

As I said, Drake's equation doesn't calculate the probability of anything (it takes probability as an input). But yes there are mathematical formulas for calculating the probability of God's existence. In fact, one example was discussed on another thread on this forum a while back. Granted, the equation was undoubtedly subjective the same way Drake's is and you would likely disagree with the values placed on the variables the same way one might disagree with the values you've used in Drake's equation.

No one said "accurately" on a degree of probability and bear in mind Drakes Equations only take into account a single galaxy.

There is a large degree of uncertainty between 0% and 100% probability, which are the currently estimated values of some of the variables as you yourself admitted:

Question: On what percentage of the planets that are capable of sustaining life does life actually evolve?
Answer: Current estimates range from 100% (where life can evolve it will) down to close to 0%.

Question: On the planets where life does evolve, what percentage evolves intelligent life?
Answer: Estimates range from 100% (intelligence is such a survival advantage that it will certainly evolve) down to near 0%.

Question: What is the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy?
Answer: Between 0% and 100%.

My point was that if you cannot calculate the probability of the two things you're comparing with any degree of accuracy (in this case the probability that prayer works compared to the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere) then it's impossible to objectively rank them on Tricky's Scale O' Rationality. Whatever ranking you choose is subject to debate.

"Exact probability"? Your strawman are procreating. No one has suggested an exact probability that is in your head.

Remove "exact" and my point still stands. It is impossible to calculate the probability of all things to any degree of certainty that would allow you to rank them in an objective way.

Lacking any empirical evidence, mechanism, or real world logic and reason then a belief that a logically unconnected act (prayer) can influence events is irrational.

That appears to be your opinion, yes.

-Bri

Beth

2nd August 2006, 08:02 AM

I'm not sure of your use of the word "subjective". Could you define your usage of the word. It is true that Drake's Equation is purely theoretical, abstract. It is of the mind. Is that what you mean?

I took her to mean that the value of certain variables in Drakes equation are unknown and currently unknowable. Thus, whatever value is used for those variables in the equation is subjective, not objective, and therefore, the results of the equation are subjective.

By altering the value of the subjective variable(s), one can arrive at any result one wants to arrive at using Drake's equation. GIGO applies - it only computes a "reasonable" probability if the values of ALL the variables are "reasonable". Since some variables are completely unknown as to their value, it's not a particularly good support for your argument.

eta: I see Bri answered this at the same time I did

Bri

2nd August 2006, 09:07 AM

You keep saying a "belief in prayer". I can't really respond because I don't know what that means.

In this discussion, I believe we've both used the phrase to mean "belief that prayer affects the outcome of events." We agreed early on that we weren't discussing other possible beliefs in prayer.

Before there was evidence to support the fact that the earth is round the opinion that the earth was flat was rational but not true. That is the problem.

Yes, I think that is THE problem (probably the crux of the whole discussion). According to your criteria, it would have been irrational to be of the opinion that the world was round because there was little evidence to support it (nor am I aware of evidence against it other than the Bible). In my opinion, if something is true then it's not necessarily irrational. And if there is no solid evidence for or against something then it is not necessarily irrational.

You also state that it was rational (but not true) to believe that the earth was flat. That is interesting, since I'm not aware of evidence of a flat earth other than the Bible. Was there solid evidence that the world was flat (other than the Bible), or just that with a lack of evidence a flat earth would have to be the default position?

We have a lot of evidence, logic and reason to suppose that it is not true.

Now we do, yes. Then we didn't. So, you are saying that without evidence, the opinion that the earth was flat was rational, but the opinion that the earth was round was necessarily irrational?

If it is that an unrelated act (prayer) influences events then that would be irrational.

But if prayer were not unrelated (as Christians believe), then it would be rational.

I'm tired.

I will grant you your long argued position that an opinion that unrelated acts can possibly alter events is not necessarily irrational.

But that is it.

I think you've sustained that much.

I'm tired as well, but I do appreciate the thoughtful discussion. If an "unrelated" act were to alter events, then it wouldn't be "unrelated" right? Otherwise, I think you already said in a previous post that a belief that something is possible is rational, so you don't appear to be conceding much here.

-Bri

Bri

2nd August 2006, 11:17 AM

It's a white elephant in the room if you can't see it I can't make you see it.

I really don't see the problem with the statement that "[God's] ability is not limited and yet he never answers a category of prayer." It seems to be fully in line with Christian belief, and with scripture (neither of which seem to indicate otherwise).

I snuck it?

Let's see, you said:

:rolleyes: Odd, it sure looks like you used the word miracle. Maybe it is just my eyes.

You need to direct your eyes back to the message to which I was responding to see where you snuck it in (emphases are mine):

Why are there categories of prayer that are never answered?

God works in mysterious ways. God doesn't want us to know he exists. God only grants prayers that are ultimately for our own good. Take your pick. If those aren't good enough, I may be able to come up with more. If the Christian God exists, we likely couldn't know for certain what his reasons might be.

If the purpose of a miracle is to manifest god and we can't tell the miracles from the non-miracles then the purpose of prayer and miracles is for-naught. (please note emphasis)

If the purpose of a miracle is to make clear God's existance to everyone in the world, then I would agree that the purpose of miracles would be for naught.

Moving on...

Non-sequitur.

I tend to agree, but it was your non-sequitur:

Irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Just as wet means to a degree wet.

I see, and rational means that there is a degree of rationality. I concede that all beliefs are both rational and irrational by those definitions. Unfortunately, those aren't very useful definitions.

Not quite my definition but in any event quite useful. When is day not night? There is a gradient. Some people are more rational than others.

Very well then. We are in agreement. All beliefs are rational, including the Christian belief in prayer. Case closed!

...

Yes, it's extremely simply to determine what is and is not rational...ALL beliefs are and are not rational by the definition above.

Which leads us to...

No, by your logic day = night. :(

Sorry, I was using your logic (or rather, assuming your claim that you were using a definition of "irrational" that means that there is a degree of irrationality). I was pointing out that such definitions aren't very useful, and render statements such as "belief that prayer can affect events is irrational" meaningless since all beliefs are irrational by that definition. It also renders the statement "belief that prayer can affect events is rational" equally true. If that's truly what you meant, then we are in complete agreement, but somehow I suspect you had a different definition of "irrational" in mind.

Curiouser and curiouser. It is without a doubt possible that prayer influences the outcome of ALL events.

It is no more probable that prayer influences some events than it does all events.

I may not have been clear enough, and really it was a minor point. I was pointing out that the word "can" in "prayer can influence the outcome of events" is ambiguous and may mean "can possibly" in this context, in which case the third statement is a fact and would be more rational than the others which are not facts. The probability that it is possible that some prayers are granted (that prayer can influence the outcome of events) is 100%. The probabilty that there is intelligent life outside of our solar system is probably somewhere greater than 0% and less than 100%.

I assume you meant "does" rather than "can" (i.e. prayer does influence the outcome of events).

We are all waiting breathlessly for this reason. Please don't keep us in suspense.

(Note that you're using a different definition of the word "reason" above)

"I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I believe that the Bible says so."
"I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I prayed for my mother to recover from her cancer despite the doctor giving her 1 week to live and she did."
"I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I believe in God."

I can go on if you like. Of course, it is reasonable to argue against these reasons (not #3), but then it is also reasonable to argue against whatever reason (not #3) one might have to believe that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

This is fallacy. The inability to prove a negative doesn't render the irrational rational.

I never said that it renders the irrational rational, nor that it renders a belief in rabbit's feet rational. I said that you haven't proven the belief to be necessarily irrational. You were arguing that the belief is irrational by definition based on the premise that belief in something is irrational if it is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. Since you cannot show that rabbit's feet aren't related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by them, you haven't shown the belief in rabbit's feet to be irrational even if we accept your premise.

Sorry, if we used your logic there would be no such thing as superstitions. And there are.

Not according to the dictionary.

The word "evil" is defined as "the quality of being morally bad or wrong." It is used as an abstract term of convenience to label certain actions that one feels are morally bad or wrong. Since a Christian believes premarital sex to be morally wrong, then a Christian believes it to be evil. However, the definition cannot be used to prove that premarital sex is morally bad or wrong.

Does that mean that there is no such thing as "evil?" Of course not, only that evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Likewise, "superstition" is an abstract term of convenience used to label certain beliefs that one feels are irrational. The definition cannot be used to prove that a certain belief is necessarily irrational.

-Bri

Bri

2nd August 2006, 11:38 AM

I took her to mean that the value of certain variables in Drakes equation are unknown and currently unknowable. Thus, whatever value is used for those variables in the equation is subjective, not objective, and therefore, the results of the equation are subjective.

By altering the value of the subjective variable(s), one can arrive at any result one wants to arrive at using Drake's equation. GIGO applies - it only computes a "reasonable" probability if the values of ALL the variables are "reasonable". Since some variables are completely unknown as to their value, it's not a particularly good support for your argument.

eta: I see Bri answered this at the same time I did

Thanks, Beth. You said it better than I did.

If any one of the variables is "0" then the result is also "0." I notice that the interactive page doesn't let you put in 0 for any of the numbers.

It also bears repeating that Drake's equation does not produce the probability that there are communicating civilizations in our galaxy. The probability is input as variables, and the number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy is produced by the equation based on the number of planets in the galaxy that are capable of sustaining life, which is also unknown and is also input as variables.

-Bri

Tricky

2nd August 2006, 11:49 AM

Not a very compelling argument, unfortunately. If God exists, there is evidence for it if he chooses to make himself known. And although we might fail to recognize the evidence for intelligent life if it is significantly different than us, an omnipotent God could ensure that we would recognize his existence if he so chose.
I am told repeatedly that God (meaning the Christian God) wants us to know Him and His son. An omnipotent God could easily let us know Him, yet He chooses not to. (And I mean "know" as objective knowledge, not faith) This is strong evidence against the Christian concept of God.

BTW, I believe RandFan mentioned in a previous post his opinion that belief in the Deist God is rational while belief in the Christian God isn't (which is why I mentioned the Deist God).
Well, RF and I aren't exactly on the same page, but I understand what he means. The definition of a the Deist God includes that He cannot distinguished apart from nature. In other words, a universe that included a Deist God would be exactly the same as a universe without a Deist God. So in that, one could say that the total absence of evidence for God still rationally allows the existence of a Deist God. Here, though, RandFan and I differ. I think that adding on a concept of God to a system which works perfectly well without such a concept is not completely rational. Occam and all that stuff.

Both are potentially knowable if they exist.One is potentially knowable but inaccessible (life in other solar systems). The other is (supposedly) omnipresent, yet still cannot be detected. I think there's a big difference.

While it is true that there is evidence of intelligent life in our solar system, I believe the question was about the existence of intelligent life outside of our solar system for which there is no evidence whatsoever. That was just the first sentence where I was setting up the scenario for my extrapolation.

And yet there still is no evidence of it. There are plenty of teapots on our planet. Can one reasonably extrapolate that there is one orbiting Saturn? There is evidence of life. That is, by itself, a great deal more evidence than there is for God.

So teapots are your choice? Okay. One characteristic of intelligence is that it manipulates objects. Primitive tools are, for example, one thing we use to judge the intelligence of our ancestors. One of the most common tools is a containing/cooking device. One might reasonably assume that such devices would be among the thinks we would find if we were to discover extra-solar intelligence. So since specialized pottery, e.g. teapots, exist among intelligent cultures here, it could be extrapolated that there might be extra-solar corollaries to this device if we were able to observe them.

By the way, Saturn is in this solar system. Nobody here is (yet) suggesting there is intelligent life on or around Saturn. How about "in orbit around Xumphidious 5"?

What is the difference between space aliens and intelligent life outside of our solar system?Nothing really. I just sometimes use different words so my posts won't be too boring. Of course, you could argue that space aliens are extra-terrestrial life that has made it into space. Do you have a preference for which term I use?

So, if something exists in one place, it would be rational to believe that it exists elsewhere, such as a teapot orbiting Saturn? We'd even know what to look for if we found it (which was another criteria you suggested above).
It would be more rational to believe in something for which we have a known example that in something for which there is no known example.

But you know, Europa is a moon orbiting Saturn which is covered, for the most part, with water. If you had to pick a place in the solar system for there to be a slight chance at life (if not teapots), orbiting Saturn would be one of the most promising.

I can tell you that it wouldn't matter what evidence God might leave. If an omnipotent being wanted us to know of his existence, there would be no question of our recognizing the evidence. Exactly what I have been saying. According to Christians, God wants us to believe in him. Yet He chooses to leave no evidence to help us believe? I'm putting that one on the "less rational" end of the scale.

On the other hand, if an extra terrestrial were significantly different than we are, you would have no idea what sorts of evidence one might leave.
Yes you would, if you have sufficiently defined "intelligent". It would leave things that suggested qualities that satisfied that definition. Manipulation of matter and energy would be a good start, which is why SETI checks the skies to see if they can detect any energy that shows signs of manipulation.

On the other hand, it would be very clear what would constitute evidence of a teapot orbiting Saturn.
Really? Like what? Tea-rings? ;)

Bri

2nd August 2006, 01:14 PM

I am told repeatedly that God (meaning the Christian God) wants us to know Him and His son. An omnipotent God could easily let us know Him, yet He chooses not to. (And I mean "know" as objective knowledge, not faith) This is strong evidence against the Christian concept of God.

I agree, it is clear that if an omnipotent God wants us to know for certain of his existence, that he could ensure it. Which is why I suspect that most Christians qualify their belief, for example that God wants us to know him of our own free will or something similar.

Well, RF and I aren't exactly on the same page, but I understand what he means.

I do too, and I agree with most of his opinions. I simply think that they are just that: opinions. When he says things like "what is and isn't rational isn't simply a matter of opinion" then I have to disagree.

One is potentially knowable but inaccessible (life in other solar systems). The other is (supposedly) omnipresent, yet still cannot be detected. I think there's a big difference.

An omnipotent God who doesn't want us to detect him would be pretty inaccessible I would think. And pretty knowable too if he decided that he wanted us to know of his existence.

That was just the first sentence where I was setting up the scenario for my extrapolation.

There is evidence of life. That is, by itself, a great deal more evidence than there is for God.

True, evidence for life would indicate that it is possible for life to exist elsewhere. But evidence of life (even intelligent life) is at best very weak evidence of intelligent life outside of the solar system.

Although I happen to agree with you, whether it is "a great deal more" evidence than for God is a matter of opinion, and certainly whether it is rational to believe one but irrational to believe the other is also a matter of opinion.

So teapots are your choice?

Not really, I was just coming up with an example of something that most would consider "irrational" that fits the criteria you were using to allow the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system to be rational. The teapot orbitting Saturn is an example that is often used of an object that we know exists, but that no evidence indicates exists anywhere but on earth. I could have just as easily said that because we know that giraffes living on land would be evidence of giraffes living in the ocean.

Okay. One characteristic of intelligence is that it manipulates objects. Primitive tools are, for example, one thing we use to judge the intelligence of our ancestors. One of the most common tools is a containing/cooking device. One might reasonably assume that such devices would be among the thinks we would find if we were to discover extra-solar intelligence. So since specialized pottery, e.g. teapots, exist among intelligent cultures here, it could be extrapolated that there might be extra-solar corollaries to this device if we were able to observe them.

By the way, Saturn is in this solar system. Nobody here is (yet) suggesting there is intelligent life on or around Saturn. How about "in orbit around Xumphidious 5"?

That's why I chose Saturn rather than Xumphidious 5. I was trying to avoid the argument that intelligent life outside of the solar system might create a teapot. My question was simply: if we know X exists, is it always rational to assume that X exists elsewhere when there is no evidence of it (as your criteria seemed to imply)?

Nothing really. I just sometimes use different words so my posts won't be too boring. Of course, you could argue that space aliens are extra-terrestrial life that has made it into space. Do you have a preference for which term I use?

Not at all. I was just making sure that you weren't differentiating between the two terms in some way.

It would be more rational to believe in something for which we have a known example that in something for which there is no known example.

Except that by this criteria, it is more rational to believe that there are intelligent humans living outside of our solar system than to believe that the intelligent life would not be human. What are the chances that another planet would evolve exactly like ours? In order to resolve this, we need to throw another qualifier onto the stack. This could go on forever (adding more and more qualifiers) until we get very specific, essentially making a list of the beliefs that are rational and the ones that are irrational.

Short of that, I don't think you'll be able to come up with a reasonable set of criteria for determing that arbitrary belief A is necessarily more rational than abritrary belief B. Far simpler would be to admit that it's just not so cut and dry.

Exactly what I have been saying. According to Christians, God wants us to believe in him. Yet He chooses to leave no evidence to help us believe? I'm putting that one on the "less rational" end of the scale.

If that were the belief (without qualifiers such as the one mentioned above) then I would tend to agree with you.

My point here is that if being able to recognize the truth of the belief if we were to see it is an issue in determining rationality, recognizing God would win over recognizing intelligent life outside of the solar system, because God could make certain of it.

Yes you would, if you have sufficiently defined "intelligent". It would leave things that suggested qualities that satisfied that definition. Manipulation of matter and energy would be a good start, which is why SETI checks the skies to see if they can detect any energy that shows signs of manipulation.

Really? Like what? Tea-rings? ;)

If one of our unmanned spacecraft were to bump into the teapot and take a picture of it, we would likely recognize it. If a spacecraft were to find an intelligent plant on another planet and take a picture of it, we might not recognize its intelligence unless it could somehow communicate with us.

-Bri

Tricky

2nd August 2006, 05:21 PM

I agree, it is clear that if an omnipotent God wants us to know for certain of his existence, that he could ensure it. Which is why I suspect that most Christians qualify their belief, for example that God wants us to know him of our own free will or something similar. I would suspect that most Christians feel God has provided evidence because they believe that they have seen miracles. I seriously doubt that many of them have made any sort of critical examination of God-given miracles versus plain old random occurrences. They choose to believe that rainbows and such are evidence of God.

I do too, and I agree with most of his opinions. I simply think that they are just that: opinions. When he says things like "what is and isn't rational isn't simply a matter of opinion" then I have to disagree.Here, I agree with RandFan. If there are no rules for what is rational, then it doesn't really mean anything. Rationalizing is not the same thing as being rational.

An omnipotent God who doesn't want us to detect him would be pretty inaccessible I would think. And pretty knowable too if he decided that he wanted us to know of his existence.
It is the whole idea of a God who wants us to accept him but will not lift a finger to help us that is ludicrous to me. This description of God is one of those very irrational things in which the conclusions deny the premise.

True, evidence for life would indicate that it is possible for life to exist elsewhere. But evidence of life (even intelligent life) is at best very weak evidence of intelligent life outside of the solar system.
And again, this is because the evidence, if it exists, is inaccessible. The strength of the evidence is simply unknown. Consider the existence of the planet Pluto. It was not known for many many years because the instruments for detecting it did not exist. Yet Pluto was discovered because it seemed rational that other, small, more distant planets existed. After all, we have discovered new planets before. Would you say that it is irrational that we may discover a tenth, eleventh or greater planet? Do you think it is irrational that there may be comets that orbit the sun that we don't know about yet? There certainly isn't any evidence of them... yet.

Although I happen to agree with you, whether it is "a great deal more" evidence than for God is a matter of opinion, and certainly whether it is rational to believe one but irrational to believe the other is also a matter of opinion.
I disagree that it is a matter of opinion, as long as we agree what constitutes evidence. If you tell me that you accept anecdotes as evidence, I might be able to show you anecdotes for other things that you possibly would agree are irrational, from divination to demons to dowsing.

Not really, I was just coming up with an example of something that most would consider "irrational" that fits the criteria you were using to allow the belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system to be rational. The teapot orbiting Saturn is an example that is often used of an object that we know exists, but that no evidence indicates exists anywhere but on earth. I could have just as easily said that because we know that giraffes living on land would be evidence of giraffes living in the ocean.

Yes, but you spoil it by specifying a required location "Saturn" or "the ocean". Why can't you just ask if it is rational that "teapots exist elsewhere" or "giraffe-like creatures may exist elsewhere". This is a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well". A corollary to your logic would be for an untraveled person to say that since we haven't detected elephants at the bottom of the sea, it is silly to think that they exist anywhere but Africa.

That's why I chose Saturn rather than Xumphidious 5. I was trying to avoid the argument that intelligent life outside of the solar system might create a teapot. My question was simply: if we know X exists, is it always rational to assume that X exists elsewhere when there is no evidence of it (as your criteria seemed to imply)?

No, not to assume, but to believe it possible, even likely with proper odds (Like billions of planets). But if you restrict "elsewhere" to a single location, then you are, as I say, poisoning the well.

Not at all. I was just making sure that you weren't differentiating between the two terms in some way.
And as I admit, I probably should have not used them interchangeably. Space aliens are in space, not on other planets. Normally, we speak of space aliens as those creatures that UFO devotees believe in. My bad.

Except that by this criteria, it is more rational to believe that there are intelligent humans living outside of our solar system than to believe that the intelligent life would not be human. What are the chances that another planet would evolve exactly like ours? In order to resolve this, we need to throw another qualifier onto the stack. This could go on forever (adding more and more qualifiers) until we get very specific, essentially making a list of the beliefs that are rational and the ones that are irrational.
I've tried to be very careful to use such terms as "giraffe-like". But since (by all evidence) other planets are working with the same building blocks as we are, that you would expect some similarities in what you build with them. Plus, I have already said that we must first define "intelligent" before we can look for intelligent life. It must be a definition that is flexible enough to allow for wide variations in methodology.

As an offshoot, I really like science fiction that does good aliens. David Brin's "Uplift" series is my favorite. He manages to create a vast array of morphologically, sociologically and theologically diverse critters, but they all have some things in common. For example, they all manipulate matter and energy in a creative fashion.

Short of that, I don't think you'll be able to come up with a reasonable set of criteria for determine that arbitrary belief A is necessarily more rational than arbitrary belief B. Far simpler would be to admit that it's just not so cut and dry.
I agree that is is not cut and dried, but I deny that it is arbitrary. I don't really think you want to take the position that all beliefs are equally rational. How could you possibly even define "rational"? Do you have a definition for "rational"?

If that were the belief (without qualifiers such as the one mentioned above) then I would tend to agree with you.

My point here is that if being able to recognize the truth of the belief if we were to see it is an issue in determining rationality, recognizing God would win over recognizing intelligent life outside of the solar system, because God could make certain of it.
Yes, and God could make a boulder too large for Him to lift. :rolleyes:

No, Bri, this premise has contradicting assumptions. It is illogical. When one plays hide-and-seek, the "hider" does not wish to be found. If God wanted us to find Him, He would not hide.

If one of our unmanned spacecraft were to bump into the teapot and take a picture of it, we would likely recognize it. Which is highly unlikely. We can't even find our own junk we've left in orbit around Earth. The data is inaccessible.

If a spacecraft were to find an intelligent plant on another planet and take a picture of it, we might not recognize its intelligence unless it could somehow communicate with us.

If your definition of intelligence included the ability to communicate (which I think any reasonable definition should) then that plant would not fit our definition of intelligent. Obviously, we might have to learn more about the plant before we could ascertain its intelligence. The same is true of earthly creatures.

Beth

2nd August 2006, 08:02 PM

No, Bri, this premise has contradicting assumptions. It is illogical. When one plays hide-and-seek, the "hider" does not wish to be found.

Then you haven't played hide-and-seek with a toddler recently! :D

Bri

2nd August 2006, 08:34 PM

I would suspect that most Christians feel God has provided evidence because they believe that they have seen miracles. I seriously doubt that many of them have made any sort of critical examination of God-given miracles versus plain old random occurrences. They choose to believe that rainbows and such are evidence of God.

Yes, but those Christians cannot deny that not everyone knows for certain that God exists (even if they claim that they personally do know that God exists). So, I agree it would indeed be irrational for them to believe that God wants everyone to know for certain that he exists. While rainbows might be evidence of God for some people, it's weak evidence at best -- it certainly doesn't prove God's existence by any means.

Here, I agree with RandFan. If there are no rules for what is rational, then it doesn't really mean anything. Rationalizing is not the same thing as being rational.

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are no such rules, particularly concerning opinions for which there is no clear evidence one way or the other.

It is the whole idea of a God who wants us to accept him but will not lift a finger to help us that is ludicrous to me. This description of God is one of those very irrational things in which the conclusions deny the premise.

Again I agree that a belief that an omnipotent God wants us to accept him by any means necessary but doesn't seem to have the ability to make us accept him would be irrational. But I suspect that Christians probably believe that God wants us to accept him by choice rather than being coerced or forced.

And again, this is because the evidence, if it exists, is inaccessible. The strength of the evidence is simply unknown.

The evidence brought by an omnipotent God would be the strongest evidence possible. It would be irrefutable if God wanted it to be irrefutable. Your criteria that belief in intelligent life outside of the solar system is more rational than belief in the existence of God because it is more knowable but less accessible is unfounded, because it is actually the opposite (the existence of God is clearly more knowable and less accessible).

Consider the existence of the planet Pluto. It was not known for many many years because the instruments for detecting it did not exist. Yet Pluto was discovered because it seemed rational that other, small, more distant planets existed. After all, we have discovered new planets before. Would you say that it is irrational that we may discover a tenth, eleventh or greater planet? Do you think it is irrational that there may be comets that orbit the sun that we don't know about yet? There certainly isn't any evidence of them... yet.

No, I wouldn't say it's necessarily irrational to believe anything for which we have no solid evidence of one way or the other (I thought that was your argument). Pluto was (at the time) knowable (under the right circumstances) but not accessible (because of the current circumstances). It would not have necessarily been irrational to believe that it existed due to lack of evidence. It is not irrational to believe that there are comets that orbit the sun even though we have no evidence for them (also knowable under the right circumstances, but not currently accessible). The same would probably hold for belief in the existence of a God who doesn't currently want us to know of his existence (also knowable under the right circumstances, but not currently accessible). Even though there is no evidence for it, it is not necessarily irrational to believe it. You kind of just made my argument for me, but I can use all the help I can get!

I disagree that it is a matter of opinion, as long as we agree what constitutes evidence. If you tell me that you accept anecdotes as evidence, I might be able to show you anecdotes for other things that you possibly would agree are irrational, from divination to demons to dowsing.

I'm not arguing whether anecdotal evidence "counts" or not. Whether it constitute "valid" evidence is a matter of opinion (and also probably depends on the nature of the anecdote). I don't think it helps whether you allow anecdotal evidence or not when it comes to defining objective criteria for determining whether one belief is more or less rational than another when there is no solid evidence (anecdotal or otherwise). You can say that anecdotal evidence isn't allowed as one of your criteria if you like.

Yes, but you spoil it by specifying a required location "Saturn" or "the ocean". Why can't you just ask if it is rational that "teapots exist elsewhere" or "giraffe-like creatures may exist elsewhere". This is a logical fallacy called "poisoning the well".

My example wasn't intended to poison the well, but I understand your concern and realize that it might have done so. You have also fell into the same trap and poisoned the well by insisting on "giraffe-like creatures" rather than giraffes! So, let's split the difference. Do you think it is more rational to believe that giraffes identical to our own or even people identical to us exist outside of our solar system than to believe that aliens unlike us exist outside of our solar system? I would think that the probability might be higher that extra-terrestirals wouldn't look like us (or like giraffes) given the nature of evolution. However, by your criteria you would have to admit it more rational for human beings or giraffes to exist than something else since we have examples of humans and giraffes existing, or else you'd have to add another criteria to resolve it. Like I said, you can keep adding new criteria and I can (possibly) keep coming up with examples that are counter to it, or you can admit that there are no rules for determining the rationality of beliefs for which there is no solid evidence.

No, not to assume, but to believe it possible, even likely with proper odds (Like billions of planets).

The question wasn't whether it was rational to believe it possible that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system, but whether it was rational to believe that it does, despite a complete lack of solid evidence.

I've tried to be very careful to use such terms as "giraffe-like". But since (by all evidence) other planets are working with the same building blocks as we are, that you would expect some similarities in what you build with them. Plus, I have already said that we must first define "intelligent" before we can look for intelligent life. It must be a definition that is flexible enough to allow for wide variations in methodology.

Your choice of "giraffe-like" was poisoning the well. I would imagine that the chances of two completely separate species evolving on a complete separate planets evolving in exactly the same way would be lower than two different species evolving on separate worlds. Yet your criteria (unless you introduce a new one) seems to imply that it is more rational to assume that if X exists here, X exists elsewhere than to assume that if X exists here, Y exists elsewhere.

As an offshoot, I really like science fiction that does good aliens. David Brin's "Uplift" series is my favorite. He manages to create a vast array of morphologically, sociologically and theologically diverse critters, but they all have some things in common. For example, they all manipulate matter and energy in a creative fashion.

I've not read the series, but I'll have to check it out from the library. I enjoyed "Perdido Street Station" (which also has some pretty nifty races in it) but it was quite dark and depressing (and lengthy!).

I agree that is is not cut and dried, but I deny that it is arbitrary.

Oh, OK, then I misunderstood your position. Then we may be in agreement, except that I still disagree with RandFan's statement that the rationality of one opinion compared to another is not a matter of opinion when it comes to beliefs for which there is no clear evidence either way. True, the processes we use to determine something to be more or less likely arent arbitrary, but in some cases they are subjective (i.e. a matter of personal opinion). I don't think that if you come to a different conclusion than I do when the evidence doesn't clearly point either way, that either belief is necessarily less rational than the other. It simply means that we viewed and evaluated the evidence differently.

I don't really think you want to take the position that all beliefs are equally rational. How could you possibly even define "rational"? Do you have a definition for "rational"?

I don't think that all beliefs are equally rational. Any belief is irrational if it is inconsistent (contradicts logic or contradicts itself). I can even agree that a belief would be irrational if it was held to be fact when it wasn't fact, or if held without a valid reason. However, I don't think that we can clearly and objectively differentiate between some beliefs for which there is no solid evidence one way or another.

Yes, and God could make a boulder too large for Him to lift. :rolleyes:

No, Bri, this premise has contradicting assumptions. It is illogical. When one plays hide-and-seek, the "hider" does not wish to be found. If God wanted us to find Him, He would not hide.

I think you may have misunderstood my point here. I was trying to address a point you made several posts ago suggesting that being able to recognize potential evidence of a belief might be a criteria by which the belief is more rational than a belief for which we wouldn't be able to recognize potential evidence:

I can tell you what evidence intelligent extraterrestrials might potentially leave. Can you tell me what evidence God might potentially leave?

By the criteria you seem to be suggesting, belief in God would be more rational hands down, because God (being omnipotent) could leave irrefutable and entirely unambiguous evidence of his existence if he so chose.

Which is highly unlikely. We can't even find our own junk we've left in orbit around Earth. The data is inaccessible.

Again, you implied earlier that inaccessibility of data is a criteria by which a belief can be deemed more rational than another belief for which the data is more accessible. If so, then belief in God wins again. God would be about as inaccessible as you can get if he so chose.

So, to recap...you said that recognizability of evidence were it to become available and inaccessibility of said evidence were criteria by which one belief might be deemed more rational than another. But God wins on both counts (so does a teapot existing elsewhere) over extra terrestrials.

If your definition of intelligence included the ability to communicate (which I think any reasonable definition should) then that plant would not fit our definition of intelligent.

There is no reason to assume that intelligent plants would communicate in ways that we know about or can easily detect (subtle movements of leaves, emission of scent, etc).

Obviously, we might have to learn more about the plant before we could ascertain its intelligence. The same is true of earthly creatures.

Exactly my point. Even if it were right in front of us, we might not recognize it. Yet if an omnipotent God chose to make himself known to us, there would be no question that we would recognize the evidence.

-Bri

RandFan

2nd August 2006, 11:29 PM

Subjective (as opposed to "objective") means "particular to a given person; personal." The choices of values for the variables are based on personal opinion rather than any scientific consensus or known fact. Thanks for your usage. I can't find that definition in any dictionary but that is fine. As long as we all know what you are talking about. A rose by anyother name.

First, and most important, Drake's equation doesn't calculate the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy. It returns the number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy given the probability of intelligent life existing in the galaxy as input (particularly variables fl, fi, fc, and fL).

Second, when I said that Drake's equation is subjective, I meant that although the math might be accurate, the subjectivity is simply removed one level to the variables. You claim that the equation is "based on observations of real world phenomenon" but there are no objective criteria by which you choose the value of most of the variables. Specifically, I would also be interested in knowing exactly what observations of real world phenomenon you used to give variables fl, fi, fc, and fL (the ones where you provide the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the galaxy) of Drake's equation values other than 0% (which might at least be backed up by evidence since there is no evidence whatsoever of life outside of our solar system). Sure, it can be argued that the values should at least be greater than 0% even if very low, but the same can be true of prayer and almost anything else that's possible.

As I said, Drake's equation doesn't calculate the probability of anything (it takes probability as an input). But yes there are mathematical formulas for calculating the probability of God's existence. In fact, one example was discussed on another thread on this forum a while back. Granted, the equation was undoubtedly subjective the same way Drake's is and you would likely disagree with the values placed on the variables the same way one might disagree with the values you've used in Drake's equation.

There is a large degree of uncertainty between 0% and 100% probability, which are the currently estimated values of some of the variables as you yourself admitted:

Question: What is the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy?
Answer: Between 0% and 100%.

My point was that if you cannot calculate the probability of the two things you're comparing with any degree of accuracy (in this case the probability that prayer works compared to the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere) then it's impossible to objectively rank them on Tricky's Scale O' Rationality. Whatever ranking you choose is subject to debate.

Remove "exact" and my point still stands. It is impossible to calculate the probability of all things to any degree of certainty that would allow you to rank them in an objective way. I'm not going to parse and debate this. I really don't see the point. The important thing is that Drakes equation is a rational means to calculate the probability of intelligent life out side of our galaxy. It is accepted by the scientific community because it relies on our understanding of our world, the planets in our solar system, planets near us as well as many other objective criteria, and the probabilities of similar worlds in the galaxy, and again, that is just the galaxy.

Probability of intelligent life outside of our solar system? Pretty good when you consider the sheer number of ALL of the suns in the universe. That's something that science can objectively consider.

Prayer? Nothing to factor.

RandFan

2nd August 2006, 11:57 PM

I really don't see the problem with the statement that "[God's] ability is not limited and yet he never answers a category of prayer." It seems to be fully in line with Christian belief, and with scripture (neither of which seem to indicate otherwise). How are you the arbiter of Christian belief? Are you talking true Christians? I don't buy that there is any such animal as "Christian belief". With all of the denominations and debates and the history of killing people because of differences in opinion I find that it really is difficult to say what "Christian belief" is. I would say that it is perhaps in line with some percentage of "Christian belief".

To answer your question, it raises a very important question to those with a scientific mind, why? This is the rational response. Of course, faith doesn't need to question anything much less God. God can help you find your eye glasses but never heal a child born without limbs. For the faithful it means nothing. For those who are willing to challenge their faith it means a lot.

I was pointing out that such definitions aren't very useful, and render statements such as "belief that prayer can affect events is irrational" meaningless since all beliefs are irrational by that definition. And of course you are wrong, it does no such thing. The analogy demonstrates that perfectly. You are trying to make a false dichotomy. I'm not. The world isn't so black and white. We have day, night and in between.

It also renders the statement "belief that prayer can affect events is rational" equally true. Of course not. No more than a gradient between day and night renders day equal to night.

The probability that it is possible that some prayers are granted (that prayer can influence the outcome of events) is 100%. Irrational. There is no such thing as the probability that it is possible.

"I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I believe that the Bible says so."
"I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I prayed for my mother to recover from her cancer despite the doctor giving her 1 week to live and she did."
"I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I believe in God."None one of those fit the definition. You are using definition #1.

The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction.That something is a motive does not mean that it provides logical sense.

An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did

I never said that it renders the irrational rational, nor that it renders a belief in rabbit's feet rational. I said that you haven't proven the belief to be necessarily irrational. You were arguing that the belief is irrational by definition based on the premise that belief in something is irrational if it is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. Since you cannot show that rabbit's feet aren't related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by them, you haven't shown the belief in rabbit's feet to be irrational even if we accept your premise. ??? Yes, I have. You can simply deny it but it is not reasonable to deny it. You have not given a logical rebuttal to my argument which is simply out of the dictionary btw. You should contact Websters to let them know that their use of the word is wrong.

One more time, I cannot show that Santa Claus isn't real. That I can't does not render the irrational rational. And yes, that is precisely what you are doing.

Likewise, "superstition" is an abstract term of convenience used to label certain beliefs that one feels are irrational. The definition cannot be used to prove that a certain belief is necessarily irrational.Only in your mind. This is not accepted by the scientific community or the psychiatry community. This is simply a contrived notion with no basis in logic or reason.

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 12:14 AM

Yes, I think that is THE problem (probably the crux of the whole discussion). According to your criteria, it would have been irrational to be of the opinion that the world was round because there was little evidence to support it (nor am I aware of evidence against it other than the Bible). In my opinion, if something is true then it's not necessarily irrational. And if there is no solid evidence for or against something then it is not necessarily irrational. This is not how I would use the word irrational and it is not how scientists, mathematicians, or psychologists use the word.

You also state that it was rational (but not true) to believe that the earth was flat. That is interesting, since I'm not aware of evidence of a flat earth other than the Bible. Was there solid evidence that the world was flat (other than the Bible), or just that with a lack of evidence a flat earth would have to be the default position? There was observation. The world seemed flat. Absent contrary evidence, that was a rational conclusion.

Now we do, yes. Then we didn't. So, you are saying that without evidence, the opinion that the earth was flat was rational, but the opinion that the earth was round was necessarily irrational? Absent evidence to the contrary it would have been viewed as irrational. Remember, truths are held provisionally. Relativity was seen as irrational by man when it was first suggested.

But if prayer were not unrelated (as Christians believe), then it would be rational.Belief is insufficient. There must be an underlying logic using deduction or induction that logically leads us to make a conclusion beyond the notion that all things are possible. That doesn't tell us anything. That is a non starter.

I'm tired as well, but I do appreciate the thoughtful discussion. If an "unrelated" act were to alter events, then it wouldn't be "unrelated" right? Otherwise, I think you already said in a previous post that a belief that something is possible is rational, so you don't appear to be conceding much here.Having a belief that all things are possible is not necessarily irrational so long as you don't act on that notion.

It's possible that I could win the lottery tomorrow. Acknowledging that fact isn't irrational. Spending my rent money to play the lottery is.

See, that is the difference. You want to make something of the notion that all things are possible. There is simply little to hang ones hat on. I may have reason (#1) to believe that I will win the lottery. A lucky horseshoe, four-leaf clover or mayonnaise on my elbow. The problem is that we can't use deduction or induction to arrive at the conclusion that these things will influence the lottery in my favor.

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 12:18 AM

By altering the value of the subjective variable(s), one can arrive at any result one wants to arrive at using Drake's equation. GIGO applies - it only computes a "reasonable" probability if the values of ALL the variables are "reasonable". Since some variables are completely unknown as to their value, it's not a particularly good support for your argument.What variables are completly unkown. I don't think you understand stastics and probabilities.

In any event, the word subjective isn't really appropriate here but that is fine.

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 12:33 AM

Well, RF and I aren't exactly on the same page, but I understand what he means. The definition of a the Deist God includes that He cannot distinguished apart from nature. In other words, a universe that included a Deist God would be exactly the same as a universe without a Deist God. So in that, one could say that the total absence of evidence for God still rationally allows the existence of a Deist God. Here, though, RandFan and I differ. I think that adding on a concept of God to a system which works perfectly well without such a concept is not completely rational. Occam and all that stuff. I would agree. I am no longer a Deist in part due to Occam so I concede that you are correct. I'm trying to find common ground with Bri,

I don't think that you can get around it, my conclusions are irrational from time to time. It's trickier than many think.

A fairly good site on rationality can be found here (http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/ArchiveFolder/Research%20Group/Publications/Reason/ReasonRationality.htm). It's not as esoteric as most that I have dug up in past days. I used to have some great links but I lost them in the great hard drive crash of 2005.

I'd love some if anyone has any BTW.

elliotfc

3rd August 2006, 04:29 AM

It is easy to define what “working” would entail. It is the essence of the Randi challenge. You simply agree that certain outcomes mean it works and other outcomes mean it doesn’t. If you wish to say prayer works, then you say what it means in advance. But unless you can find some way to demonstrate that the outcome satisfied the agreed-upon definition, then the term means nothing.

Well, I guess meaning is relative then. I will just insist that something can work without us knowing how it works...if you believe the earth is billions of years old this is pretty much the way it has *always* been, with the knowledge of how things work being a blip of a blip of a blip. Things have always worked, definitions notwithstanding.

“Truth” is another one of those things like this. You hear people say all the time “It is true for me.” But if truth is not demonstrably true for everyone, how can you possibly call it truth?

And if irrationality (as you and others see it) is not demonstrably irrational for everyone, how can you possibly call it irrationality?

The word to use isn't *can*, because clearly people can call things anything they want. Also, objective truth, imo, doesn't have to be demonstrably true for everyone.

It is NOT irrelevant to the people involved. It would be like saying “write a letter to me and I promise you your son in Iraq will read it.” Yes, you may feel better by doing it, but if it were exposed as a fake, do you not think the people who were told a falsehood would be outraged?

Yes.

No, it is not irrelevant at all if your heartfelt communication with God is not actually reaching its destination and you have no way of telling it.

I guess the analogy breaks down at "if it were exposed as a fake"...also, the heartfelt communication would be independent of outside intervention...as, with the letter, you'd need another *person* to get the letter to the son, whereas with prayer it's about the individual and God and nobody else.

Even after they learn that reindeer can’t fly, and that it would be physically impossible to visit every household in the world (or even a medium sized city) in a single night? You think it would still be rational for them to believe it? Yes, I can see we will never agree on what rational means.

Your phrase..."rational for them to believe it".

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Not rational *independent* of the individual, but rational *for* the individual.

Yes. If an encyclpedia proclaimed the true and actual and real existence of Santa Claus, I would think that foolish. However, if an individual believed in the existence of Santa Claus, I'd charitably reckon that it was rational for the individual to have that belief. Again, in your words, "it would still be rational for them". Not indepenedently rational/irrational, but dependently, on the individual.

As I’ve said earlier, we are all rational about some things and irrational about others.

Maybe. Again, I'd prefer right or wrong. Right and wrong are independent of thinking process, which I think is the difference between rational and right/wrong. Rational/irrational is a process, right and wrong just are.

When I say “irrational” I am only referring to the specific topic being discussed. I’m not talking about my irrational fear of cockroaches. If calling you irrational about God is an insult to you, then at least let it be a limited one. You can call me a coward about roaches without me considering that you think I am totally craven.

Understood, you're being very reasonable here.

Um… I’m not sure I see the deal here. I get a posthumous apology from a person who I didn’t wish dead?

I'm trying to determine the vitality of the particular charge of irrationality. That may or may not be relevant. Since I view rationality/irrationality as closely associated with the individual, I'm also interested in the consequences of the matter to the individual.

Yet God satisfies the description of imaginary beings. Not visible to others (as in do you see the same thing)? Check. Not audible (the same way) to others? Check. No objective evidence of His existence? Check.

Of course I accept that God is an imaginary being to some

What does it take for you to consider a thing imaginary?

Good question! I can't recall my/me ever saying, or telling someone, that something is imaginary. I'm sure I have. But nothing is coming to mind. Even with Santa Claus, and I've talked to several kids about Santa Claus...I've never told a kid that Santa Claus is imaginary. You look around and you see Santa Clauses. You talk about it reasonably with the kid...and whaddya know...at a certain age the kid comes to a realization and you don't have to be pedantic about it. No need to label the idea either.

Now, do I consider the idea of Santa Claus (guy living at the North Pole) imagainary? Sure. Do I obsess over that fact? No. I have an opinion about it, and I don't think about it that much. I only think about the fact that Santa Claus is imaginary when I am confronted with that statement on these boards. Believe it or not, most other communities have no need to dwell on that fact. :)

I don’t consider calling someone “irrational” to be calling them a name.

Fair enough. I don't think you're an ubermensch.

Ya know. Search for truth. That kind of stuff. If it is my weakness to need to know the truth, then that’s my cross to bear (to borrow a metaphor).

With search for truth, I think you'd agree with me that the skeptical person considers him/herself to be continually searching for truth. It doesn't stop. The non-skeptical person, or assuredly religious person, thinks that he/she has found the truth, and there's no need to keep searching. That doesn't mean that a religious person won't search for the truth in other avenues of course (maybe he/she is a detective or an auditor as a profession).

I'm just pointing out that the skeptic actually does believe that they have found the truth, and the truth is that they should continually search for the truth. That is the truth, and they are as dogmatic about that particular truth as religious are dogmatic about their religious truths.

That's what I meant when I brought up need. This need fuels the dogmatic belief that it is good to continually search for the truth and have threshholds for accepting truth and all that. I'm not placing a value judgment on that. I'm just saying that it's a need.

See, the religious think that truth is *unavoidable*. Searching for it...I won't say it's a waste of time...but we're gonna be smacked upside the head with it in the next one. The other aspect is that of faith, which is basically anathema to most here (nevermind that I can prove that there is such a think as a skeptical faith, if only because you need to have faith in the value of being a skeptic to be a skeptic). Not only do we believe that it's good to have faith, but we're also commanded to have faith. And again, that's not talking about *everything*, of course you can be skeptical in worldly matters and non-skeptical in religious matters, although some here are probably skeptical of *that* as well. :)

Yep. I am limited by my inability to believe myths. Damn cross.

Right. Now, when the Christian says that he/she is bearing a cross, we understand that we share in the suffering of Christ when we do just that. I think you're lacking that particular understanding. I think it's more like "I am what and how I am". You don't really believe it's a cross. I think you're content with your inability to believe myths (I'm not giving into your implication that Christianity is complete myth of course, just working in your framework). For the Christian, you ought not be content with the cross that you bear, and pray that the cross can be transformed, just like Christ used the cross not for complete defeat but total victory.

Try it if you imagine God is imaginary. I can imagine God. Can you imagine the absence of God?

Yes.

Yep. Wasted a lot of your life in a fruitless pursuit. Oh well.

Depends how you define fruit, or fruitless?

If religious people have a dozen kids out of a sense of religious obligation, I think it would be absurd to call that a fruitless pursuit of life. A lot of great books have been written by religious types, great music, even great science.

I think we live lives. When we live, we do things. Wasting time is an external judgment, a subjective estimation. Do dogs and cats waste their lives anymore than people do? How about plants?

Of course you have the right to judge a Christian as having lived a complete waste of a life, but that's best kept to yourself in my opinion. Just an opinion is as welcome as picketting a person's funeral telling the dead that they were this that and the other thing because their worldview failed to correspond to your own.

Even though I disagree with you about everything, I don't think you're wasting your life. How could you be wasting your life? You're living it, and it's not my place to judge you, even if you were the world's biggest procrastinator, because even then you'd be living your life and not wasting it. I guess suicide would qualify as a waste of life, but even then, maybe suicide may bring others to certain levels they wouldn't otherwise reach, I dunno.

As I say, you and I aren’t likely to agree on what is rational. If you’re right, oh well.

Exactly. That's my point. If I'm right, and you're wrong, we're still what we are, nothing has changed, my being right and you're being wrong doesn't change objective reality, and we'll both deal with the ramifications of the existence of God as best we can. If you're right and I'm wrong, we'll both be nothing, and that's about the only perfect equalizer in existence.

Fairly spoken. I have tried to corner you (this being a debate and all). But I will state clearly that I don’t think that your “caring” is an off/on thing. I think you care less than I about this particular issue. You almost certainly care more about other issues that I also agree are important. But in the interest of staying on topic, I present a situation where you can show you care more or you care less. I’d argue that is not truly a dichotomy, but a direction, and relative to this issue only.

I care in my own way, don't you think? :)

Yet I doubt that you would take the extreme view that prayers have zero connection to results, just as you obviously agree that prayers do not have 100% correlation with results.

You are correct!

You would seem to be somewhere in the middle. I’m admittedly pretty close to the “zero results” pole, but I will argue that my position is based on evidence. Yet I would also agree that I would be willing to shift positions if objective evidence came to light.

I think'll you'll get what you want eventually. ;)

That is not, and has never been my position. I am not trying to force God to do tricks for me. I just want evidence that he does something. Anything. So far, I have seen no evidence whatsoever.

And the religious believe that everything is evidence of God's work. I guess it's contingent on the individual, but that's also basic theology.

I have admitted that one of my own assumptions by which I reason is that real things have evidence for them. I feel that if this assumption were discarded, then there would be no way of telling what is real. I’m funny that way.

But before people had any conception of evidence (ummm...maybe just articulated conception?) they had a good handle on what was real and what wasn't. Also, I see no reason to be content with accepting things in a defined and confined reality, although I recognize that some can only be content with that. Again, it's up to the individual.

-Elliot

elliotfc

3rd August 2006, 04:47 AM

1.) It could make 180982 women with different appearences for the 180982 men and appear to be the most beautiful woman in the world individually for each man and vice versa for the women. While making it impossible for these people to not meet their counterpart and fall in love.

Good answer. I was thinking more about objective beauty...a beauty so objective that all subjective opinions would recognize it.

It could make it so that there would be no need for money to survive and allow each person who prayed to have all the money in the world to obtain it for a brief period of time until they spent it....Or atleast allow every person to have special skills and the proper environment to make a wealthy living if they decided to act upon their desire of wealth.

Good answer. I coulda phrased it in more absolutist terms, maybe like, a person praying to have all the money that has ever existed and will ever exist to such an extent that it no other person would have any money, not even a fake penny, because the person would have all of the money that ever has and ever will exist for all of eternity and in every conceivable dimension.

Thanks for helping me tighten these guys up. :)

It could allow you to die a very painful death and then be brought back to life moments after and force you to move locations so the neighbor is rid of you.

Good answer. Sure, God *could* do lots of things.

2.) If an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God existed it does not seem reasonable one bit.

I disagree, based on at least the working Christian theology. Omnipotence does not mean whether or not God *will* do any and everything. Let's say I gave you a list of 5000 things to do. One of them is push a shopping cart off of a cliff, another would be to learn Farsi, another to perform lude and lascivious acts with the neighbor's dog. If you didn't do these things, it wouldn't be because you *couldn't*, but you didn't want to, because it would go against your nature and/or why the HELL should you do something just because I tell you to do it.

Anyways, back to reasonable/unreasonable, it's not because of the omni-words, but because God also has a particular nature and he won't grant any and all requests particularly outrageous ones just to satisfy our desire. The omni-words are above reason (and morality), but ours is a reasonable God.

3.) But in my opinion christians do expect to control their God. If a christian asks for forgiveness do they not expect to be forgiven even when they repeat the offense a second or third time?

Yes, because of what God told us through Christ. Also, we have to *forgive others* in order to be forgiven. It's not just throwing a pebble into a pond to get forgiveness.

You're right in a way. A person can say that he/she controls the justice system because he or she can decide to act lawfully or unlawfully, therefore the justice system is contingent on them. That's kind of true, but not really, God's stated equations (forgive others and you will be forgiven) are greater than us, and we can enter into the framework if we choose. We can also choose not to. Are we controlling gravity if we decide to jump off a building and let gravity "work" on us? No, gravity is what it is.

Do christians not try to "appease" their God by following scripture and expect it not to toss them into a lake of fire?

Sure, some do.

When it comes to control the relationship between God and christians are very similar to that of a whore and a client of a whore. A whore appears to be the controlled and the client the master but in the end the client pays the whore and the whore gets what they wanted all along.

Wow, I'm sorry you think that way!

As for the whole Gods "will" thing then obviously his will is not of good intention at times.

You can subjectively make that statement, sure. I agree that you may judge an intention of God's to be a bad intention.

What one may judge as good another could just as easily judge as bad as you have stated in 1.) with your prayer scenerio's which were completed by a mere mortal.

Exactly. If you believe in subjective judgment sure, you can judge anything to be good or to be bad.

Explain to me an exact deinifition of God's will. How is a person who has an abortion not God's will?

Well, we believe that abortion is a sin, and sin goes against God's will.

What if the child to be born were to become the next hitler?

Humans have free will, they can become the next anything.

What if God's will has already been set into place and whatever event or decision already made or about to be made has been forseen and dealt with since the creation of the universe?

Some people believe this. I actually believe this in my own way. I think we all have free will, God has granted and allowed us this free will, and in his omniscience he knows about every event that has ever happened (in his own particular way of course) but we still had/have free will.

Seems like a lot of words to describe something that could easily be described as non existant.

Sometimes it takes a lot of words to explain things, I have a hell of a lot of science textbooks to prove it! I think the number of words used is irrelevant.

-Elliot

elliotfc

3rd August 2006, 04:53 AM

Yes, such resuscitations invariably happen within a short time span of clinical death. Similarly, severed limbs have been successfully grafted back onto their original owners, again within a short period after separation. Wonderful thing, this medical science.

Totally! I think God expects us to use our talents. If it were only miracles, why the hell develop our talents? Down with the slackers!

Yes, but not of complex structures on complex life forms. The arm of a starfish is hardly as complex as that of a person.

My point was that regrown limbs is not unheard of in nature is all, and that's all.

There's no reason to suppose that limb regrowth should occur instantaneously in order for it to qualify as miraculous. If it occurred at all it would be a wondrous thing.

Agreed.

Nobody is calculating probabilities here - it is sufficient to say that they are close to nil.

With what we have observed, sure.

Reality certainly does care very much about mechanisms; e.g. there is no known mechanism for attaining a temperature of 0° K or below.

I don't believe in giving reality human attributes like caring.

Attempting to chill to such temperatures is problematic irrespective of any point of view one might assume in respect of this endeavour.

I reckon it's never been measured before.

-Elliot

elliotfc

3rd August 2006, 04:56 AM

slingblade

3rd August 2006, 05:41 AM

Here's what I know.

I'm a mom. When one of my kids is huddled in a corner, crying his eyes out in total despair, I comfort him. I'm right there. I hold him, I talk to him, I try to help him. Even if he's crying because he did something wrong, something I don't approve of, I still comfort him. I love him. He matters to me, and I show that.

I do not tell him that if he wants help, he's going to have to ask me in a certain way, and that I'll only help him if it happens to be what I want for him, and I just might not want him to feel better.

I don't sit silent in my chair, in another room altogether where he can't even see me, doing nothing for him. I don't allow him to sink deeper and deeper into despair, thinking no one cares, and no one will help. I don't make him beg, I don't make him plead, I don't make him give me money first or dance any other crazy dance to appease me first. I am there for him, and I make sure he knows it. Period. Regardless. He is my child. I promised to love him, and promised always to care for him. And I keep that promise, even if he's made me angry.

I do believe that the New Testament is called a covenant, right? That's an agreement between two or more people, right? The agreement I made, once upon a time, was that I would worship and obey God, and in return, he would love me and help me.

I kept my end. God didn't.

I said once before that this left me with only two alternatives: God hates me, or God isn't there.

I stand by that, and by my choice to believe God isn't there.
If he is, all he has to do is say so. If he is, he's the most cruel and neglectful parent I've ever heard of, and I have no use for one more ounce of cruelty in my ravaged life, thanks.

[PITY PARTY EDIT. Carry on]

Anacoluthon64

3rd August 2006, 06:12 AM

I think God expects us to use our talents. If it were only miracles, why the hell develop our talents? Down with the slackers!Yes, our allotments of miracles decrease in size, content and quality as our sophistication increases. There is something at work here that merits our deep suspicion.

I don't believe in giving reality human attributes like caring.Fair enough, though I expect that you knew my intended meaning.

So now it is my turn to be pedantic, yes? I don't believe in crediting unsubstantiated presuppositions with any reality other than as conjectures.

I reckon it's never been measured before.And if our physical theories and models are accurate representations of reality, we never shall; in fact, we should not be able to measure it even if it did occur. The metaphysical (I hesitate to use that much-abused term) value here is that either we've established a particular limit to what can be achieved physically in this context, or our understanding thereof (i.e. of that physical reality) is faulty. Either option constitutes valuable knowledge, but note that the latter, if unequivocally observed, would in a sense be a bona fide miracle until such time as we have an improved model of reality.

'Luthon64

Bri

3rd August 2006, 06:26 AM

Thanks for your usage. I can't find that definition in any dictionary but that is fine. As long as we all know what you are talking about. A rose by anyother name.

The Free Dictionary (def. 1b) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=Subjective+).

I'm not going to parse and debate this. I really don't see the point. The important thing is that Drakes equation is a rational means to calculate the probability of intelligent life out side of our galaxy.

(emphasis mine). You should have parsed at least the first sentence. Here's what I said (since you didn't want to parse it):

First, and most important, Drake's equation doesn't calculate the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy. It returns the number of communicating civilizations in our galaxy given the probability of intelligent life existing in the galaxy as input (particularly variables fl, fi, fc, and fL).

From your own source (http://www.activemind.com/Mysterious/Topics/SETI/drake_equation.html):

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy.

Your summary of Drake's equation is simply wrong.

It is accepted by the scientific community because it relies on our understanding of our world, the planets in our solar system, planets near us as well as many other objective criteria, and the probabilities of similar worlds in the galaxy, and again, that is just the galaxy.

Probability of intelligent life outside of our solar system? Pretty good when you consider the sheer number of ALL of the suns in the universe. That's something that science can objectively consider.

You must still enter the probabilities of intelligent life existing in our galaxy using Drake's equation. Sorry, the equation doesn't calculate it. "Current estimations" of the probability of intelligent life existing in our galaxy (according to your own source) is 0% to 100%. Big surprise there!

Prayer? Nothing to factor.

Here's a formula for prayer that accurately calculates the number of prayers granted by God:

N = P* np fi

N is the number of prayers that are granted by God

P* represents the number of people praying
np represents the number of prayers by each person
fi represents the fraction of prayers prayed that are granted by God. (Current estimates range between 0% and 100%)

Does that now make it rational to believe in prayer?

-Bri

Bri

3rd August 2006, 07:29 AM

How are you the arbiter of Christian belief? Are you talking true Christians? I don't buy that there is any such animal as "Christian belief". With all of the denominations and debates and the history of killing people because of differences in opinion I find that it really is difficult to say what "Christian belief" is. I would say that it is perhaps in line with some percentage of "Christian belief".

I didn't say "all Christian belief" -- I said "Christian belief." Given that you have yet to show a single Christian belief that this isn't in line with, I'd guess it's in line with a pretty high percentage of Christian beliefs, but that's only a guess.

To answer your question, it raises a very important question to those with a scientific mind, why? This is the rational response. Of course, faith doesn't need to question anything much less God. God can help you find your eye glasses but never heal a child born without limbs. For the faithful it means nothing. For those who are willing to challenge their faith it means a lot.

And yet there are plenty of answers to "why" that fit with reality (I've listed many in previous posts). Besides that, Christian belief is based on faith and the belief in an omniscient being, so not only is it not necessary for Christians to know the answer, it's not possible to know the answer.

And of course you are wrong, it does no such thing. The analogy demonstrates that perfectly. You are trying to make a false dichotomy. I'm not. The world isn't so black and white. We have day, night and in between.

I was using your definition: irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Can you name a belief that doesn't have a degree of irrationality?

Of course not. No more than a gradient between day and night renders day equal to night.

I was using your definition: rational means that there is a degree of rationality. Can you name a belief that doesn't have a degree of rationality?

I have no idea what your day equals night analogy refers to.

Irrational. There is no such thing as the probability that it is possible.

Of course there is. The probability of a true statement being true is 100%. By Tricky's Scale O' Rationality, the ONLY beliefs that should be at the far end of the "rational" scale are those based on true logical statements.

None one of those fit the definition. You are using definition #1.

No I'm not. Reason #3 is "An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence." The second half of each of those sentences is a true fact or cause that provides logical sense for the belief.

That something is a motive does not mean that it provides logical sense.

Sorry, but the basis/motive is that part that comes after the "because." The "there is reason to believe in prayer because..." is definition #3. Again, you don't have to agree that what comes after the "because" (the reason #1) is good enough, but the entire statement is still reason #3.

??? Yes, I have. You can simply deny it but it is not reasonable to deny it. You have not given a logical rebuttal to my argument which is simply out of the dictionary btw. You should contact Websters to let them know that their use of the word is wrong.

Their use of the word isn't wrong -- your use of the definition is wrong.

One more time, I cannot show that Santa Claus isn't real. That I can't does not render the irrational rational. And yes, that is precisely what you are doing.

You seem to be missing the point and I don't know how else to explain it. You cannot use the dictionary definition if "superstition" that you posted to show that prayer is irrational. You cannot even use the premise that belief in something is irrational if it is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it unless you can show that prayer fits the premise (you already admitted that you can't).

Only in your mind. This is not accepted by the scientific community or the psychiatry community. This is simply a contrived notion with no basis in logic or reason.

No idea what you're talking about, since terms like "superstition" aren't scientific terms (at least not by the definition you posted), and as far as I know there is no scientific means of determining whether something that is unfalsifiable is superstition. You cannot prove that prayer is superstition by that definition, therefore you cannot prove that prayer is irrational by that definition.

-Bri

Beth

3rd August 2006, 08:03 AM

What variables are completly unkown. I don't think you understand stastics and probabilities.

In any event, the word subjective isn't really appropriate here but that is fine.

Bri already answered the question regarding the unknown variables. As far as using the word "subjective" here, it is completely appropriate for this context. Until about a year ago I was teaching college level statistics and would introduce the term "subjective probability" in my intro classes every semester as the usage is well-known and understood in statistics. Bayesian statistics in particular build heavily on the use of subjective probabilities.

Bri

3rd August 2006, 08:10 AM

This is not how I would use the word irrational and it is not how scientists, mathematicians, or psychologists use the word.

Please post the scientific, mathematical, or phsychological definition of "irrational" and then prove that belief in prayer necessarily fits the definition. I'll then agree with you wholeheartedly.

There was observation. The world seemed flat. Absent contrary evidence, that was a rational conclusion.

There are very few opinions for which there is no contradictory evidence. In this case, someone might have looked out at the ocean and noticed that they couldn't see forever and therefore surmised that the world was round. So, would they have been necessarily irrational as you claimed?

Absent evidence to the contrary it would have been viewed as irrational. Remember, truths are held provisionally. Relativity was seen as irrational by man when it was first suggested.

Of course there was evidence to the contrary, just not evidence that everyone accepted. That's exactly my point. When it was first suggested, relativity may have been seen as irrational, but was never irrational. Anyone claiming that relativity was irrational would have been stating an opinion not a fact!

Belief is insufficient. There must be an underlying logic using deduction or induction that logically leads us to make a conclusion beyond the notion that all things are possible. That doesn't tell us anything. That is a non starter.

Logic using deduction or induction will not lead to any conclusion concerning prayer other than the possibility that prayer works. At best, it will lead you to realize that the question cannot be answered with any certainty. Now, you can then claim that in order to be rational one must be agnostic about the question of prayer, witholding both opinion for and opinion against prayer. But then the same would hold about all opinions for which there is no definitive evidence, including some that you've already held are rational. If you want to admit that all of those opinions that you have previously claimed are rational are actually irrational, then you might have a point (albeit one based on a definitions of "rational" and "irrational" that few use).

Having a belief that all things are possible is not necessarily irrational so long as you don't act on that notion.

It's possible that I could win the lottery tomorrow. Acknowledging that fact isn't irrational. Spending my rent money to play the lottery is.

Although I personally don't play the lottery, spending a buck now and again on the lottery compared with the benefit if you happen to win isn't necessarily irrational. Nor is praying that someone will recover from cancer when weighed with the benefit if prayer works necessarily irrational.

-Bri

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 08:33 AM

The Free Dictionary (def. 1b) (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=Subjective+).

Ok, let's go back.
Subjective (as opposed to "objective") means "particular to a given person; personal." The choices of values for the variables are based on personal opinion rather than any scientific consensus or known fact. The choices of values for the variables are not simply based on personal opinion. That is just nonsense.

Your summary of Drake's equation is simply wrong. No, it is not wrong.

When all of these variables are multiplied together when come up with:

N, the number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy. What do you think a communicating civilization is? To communicate a civilization must be intelligent.

"Current estimations" of the probability of intelligent life existing in our galaxy (according to your own source) is 0% to 100%. Those are pretty decent odds. And that is one galaxy. How man galaxies are there in the universe? The odds go up with each galaxy.

Here's a formula for prayer that accurately calculates the number of prayers granted by God:

N = P* np fi

N is the number of prayers that are granted by God

P* represents the number of people praying
np represents the number of prayers by each person
fi represents the fraction of prayers prayed that are granted by God. (Current estimates range between 0% and 100%)
Does that now make it rational to believe in prayer? No, because you don't have a single example of prayer working using objective criteria.

We have an example of intelligent life. It is empirical. You and I are proof that a COMMUNICATING civilization exists. Now, can you give me such an example for prayer?

You simply don't understand the equation. The variables aren't "personal". Where you got that from is beyond me.

Cuddles

3rd August 2006, 08:36 AM

Reality certainly does care very much about mechanisms; e.g. there is no known mechanism for attaining a temperature of 0° K or below. Attempting to chill to such temperatures is problematic irrespective of any point of view one might assume in respect of this endeavour.

This is a poor example. The definition of temperature means there is no such thing a temperature below 0K. It is not that such a mechanism is unknown or problematic, the whole concept is meaningless. In the same way that there is no way of going north from the north pole.

Cuddles

3rd August 2006, 08:42 AM

Ok, let's go back.
The choices of values for the variables are not simply based on personal opinion. That is just nonsense.

No, it is not wrong.

What do you think a communicating civilization is? To communicate a civilization must be intelligent.

Those are pretty decent odds. And that is one galaxy. How man galaxies are there in the universe? The odds go up with each galaxy.

No, because you don't have a single example of prayer working using objective criteria.

We have an example of intelligent life. It is empirical. You and I are proof that a COMMUNICATING civilization exists. Now, can you give me such an example for prayer?

You simply don't understand the equation. The variables aren't "personal". Where you got that from is beyond me.

The variable are entirely personal. Drake's equation is ignored by most scientists because the only fact known is that life exist here. Any estimates of the number of planets, the number of these inhabited and the chance of life becoming intelligent are entirely made up since there is essentially no data to base such estimates on.

All we can say is that there are planets around one star, and probably some around at least a few others. We can say that life appeared on at least one planet, but have no idea what conditions were required for this, let alone what other conditions may allow different kinds of life. We know intelligence developed at least once, but do not understand how or why.

Edit : You consider odds anywhere between 0% to 100% to be decent? I hope you never start gambling.

I less than three logic

3rd August 2006, 08:56 AM

All we can say is that there are planets around one star, and probably some around at least a few others.
No probably about it, there are planets around other stars. So far we've discovered 184 planets (this only includes planets around main sequence stars) and 97 planetary systems. :)
http://planetquest1.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 09:07 AM

I didn't say "all Christian belief" -- I said "Christian belief." Given that you have yet to show a single Christian belief that this isn't in line with, I'd guess it's in line with a pretty high percentage of Christian beliefs, but that's only a guess. What "Christian belief"? This is non-sensical. Christians believe all sorts of things. There is no true Christian belief. Beliefs range from absolute blind faith to skepticism. I can't prove any single belief. I know lots of people who fervently believe that God regularly grants their prayers in the affirmative. I don't think many of them have given any thought to this. I don't think most even have such concrete thoughts about prayer. In any event, I can't prove what people believe. I can only show you logical inconsistencies.

And yet there are plenty of answers to "why" that fit with reality (I've listed many in previous posts).None that are reasonable.

I was using your definition: irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Can you name a belief that doesn't have a degree of irrationality? I don't hold absolute positions. I can't name one for you. Gravity has worked since recorded history. No theory has been proposed to demonstrate that it doesn't.

I don't hold that a belief in gravity is absolutely rational. I hold that it is one of the most rational beliefs. I can postulate some theories where it could be viewed as irrational.

I have no idea what your day equals night analogy refers to. Well, answer this question, when does day exactly become night?

Of course there is. The probability of a true statement being true is 100%.That is silly and tautalogical. The probability of a black cat being black is redundant and tells us nothing that we don't know by simply stating that the cat is black.

No I'm not. Reason #3 is "An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence." The second half of each of those sentences is a true fact or cause that provides logical sense for the belief. We can't use induction or deduction to arrive at a conclusion that the premises are true.

If the moon is made of green cheese then it is edible. That is a valid hypothetical but the premise is not true so the proposition that the moon is edible is false.

I believe that the moon is made of green cheese because I prayed and that was the answer that came to my mind.

"I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I believe that the Bible says so."
"I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I prayed for my mother to recover from her cancer despite the doctor giving her 1 week to live and she did."
"I have reason (#3) to believe that prayer works because I believe in God." I believe that I can live without eating any food because there are people who do this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breatharian).

That is definition (#1) and not (#3).

Your statement # 1: We can't use induction or deduction to conclude that prayer works. In the end it is just your belief. However, WE CAN use induction to conclude that it doesn't work because all studies demonstrate that it doesn't work.

Your statement # 2: Clearly and demonstrably anecdotal. We can ignorantly use induction but not deduction to come to a conclusion that the prayer cures cancer. However, once someone understands the problems inherent with anecdotal evidence it is no longer rational to draw such a conclusion.

Your statement # 2: We can't use induction or deduction to validate your belief. It is just your belief. It is no more valid than believing that you can live without food.

Sorry, but the basis/motive is that part that comes after the "because." The "there is reason to believe in prayer because..." is definition #3. Again, you don't have to agree that what comes after the "because" (the reason #1) is good enough, but the entire statement is still reason #3. No for (#3) Yes for (#2). The "reason" must be logical. We must be able to use induction or deduction to arrive at the validity of the premise to use (#3).

I believe that I can live without eating food because other have done it.

You cannot use the dictionary definition if "superstition" that you posted to show that prayer is irrational. Prayer fits the definition so yes, I can.

You cannot even use the premise that belief in something is irrational if it is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it unless you can show that prayer fits the premise (you already admitted that you can't). No I did not.

No idea what you're talking about, since terms like "superstition" aren't scientific terms (at least not by the definition you posted), and as far as I know there is no scientific means of determining whether something that is unfalsifiable is superstition. You cannot prove that prayer is superstition by that definition, therefore you cannot prove that prayer is irrational by that definition. I can only make the argument. It is demonstrable that prayer fits the definition.

Bri

3rd August 2006, 09:11 AM

Ok, let's go back.
The choices of values for the variables are not simply based on personal opinion. That is just nonsense.

OK, let me ask you. What values did you place in fl and fi (the two variables that define the probability that intelligent life has ever existed on the planets in the galaxy which are capable of sustaining life)? What objective criteria did you use to determine this, since the "current estimates" range from 0% to 100% for both of those?

Likewise, in my admittedly silly equation concerning prayer below, it is up to the user to place a value for the probability of a prayer being granted by God.

No, it is not wrong.

You said that "Drakes equation is a rational means to calculate the probability of intelligent life out side of our galaxy." It isn't. It's a means to calculate the number of intelligent civilations in the galaxy given the probability of intelligent life existing on the number of planets given that are capable of supporting life.

What do you think a communicating civilization is? To communicate a civilization must be intelligent.

Read what I wrote carefully. It has nothing to do with the communication part of the equation.

Those are pretty decent odds. And that is one galaxy. How man galaxies are there in the universe? The odds go up with each galaxy.

Between 0% and 100% are the exact same odds that prayer works, I hate to say. According to your logic, given the vast number of additional prayers prayed each day, the odds must go up that one of them will be answered. No, if the value of even one of the variables is "0" then the number is always "0" no matter how many galaxies you throw in.

No, because you don't have a single example of prayer working using objective criteria.

Nor do you have a single example of intelligent life existing outside of the solar system, using objective criteria or otherwise.

We have an example of intelligent life. It is empirical. You and I are proof that a COMMUNICATING civilization exists. Now, can you give me such an example for prayer?

Intelligent life existing in one place is weak evidence at best of intelligent life actually existing elsewhere. Yes, I can give you weak evidence that prayer works too.

You simply don't understand the equation. The variables aren't "personal". Where you got that from is beyond me.

The values you place on the variables is your personal opinion and is not selected by objective criteria. There is no objective means by which one calculates the "correct" value. That's why the estimates range so wildly.

-Bri

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 09:19 AM

The variable are entirely personal. Drake's equation is ignored by most scientists because the only fact known is that life exist here. Any estimates of the number of planets, the number of these inhabited and the chance of life becoming intelligent are entirely made up since there is essentially no data to base such estimates on.Demonstrably untrue.

Edit : You consider odds anywhere between 0% to 100% to be decent? I hope you never start gambling. Give me the equivalent of all of the galaxies in the universe and I would happily take that bet.

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 09:30 AM

OK, let me ask you. What values did you place in fl and fi (the two variables that define the probability that intelligent life has ever existed on the planets in the galaxy which are capable of sustaining life)? What objective criteria did you use to determine this, since the "current estimates" range from 0% to 100% for both of those? What you fail to understand Bri is that we can make estimates for each of the variables using logic and reason. It is not exact science but it is science.

Likewise, in my admittedly silly equation concerning prayer below, it is up to the user to place a value for the probability of a prayer being granted by God. The difference is that the probability of prayer using your equation is completely arbitrary. There is no reason to assume those variables. Scientists can come up with reasonable estimates based on their understanding of the universe. Huge difference.

The values you place on the variables is your personal opinion and is not selected by objective criteria. There is no objective means by which one calculates the "correct" value. That's why the estimates range so wildly.It's not that simple, scientists can use objective criteria to arrive at reasonable estimates.

Anacoluthon64

3rd August 2006, 09:31 AM

This is a poor example. The definition of temperature means there is no such thing a temperature below 0K. It is not that such a mechanism is unknown or problematic, the whole concept is meaningless. In the same way that there is no way of going north from the north pole.Please do your homework properly before posting. It helps in minimising the incidence of fatuous statements such as the above.

'Luthon64

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 09:31 AM

Bri already answered the question regarding the unknown variables. As far as using the word "subjective" here, it is completely appropriate for this context. It really, really isn't.

Bri

3rd August 2006, 10:19 AM

What "Christian belief"? This is non-sensical.

Oh boy. I meant Christian belief as in your statement that Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational. The statement you made about God having the power to grant any prayer but choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does not seem to contradict any Christian belief that I've seen.

None that are reasonable.

They're all reasonable and logical. Any one of them could be true. Or there could be a reason that none of us knows about that could be true.

I don't hold absolute positions. I can't name one for you. Gravity has worked since recorded history. No theory has been proposed to demonstrate that it doesn't.

I don't hold that a belief in gravity is absolutely rational. I hold that it is one of the most rational beliefs. I can postulate some theories where it could be viewed as irrational.

So, I was right when I said that all beliefs are irrational by that definition. Then I agree that according to your definition that "irrational" means that there is a degree of irrationality, belief that prayer can affect events and belief in gravity are both irrational.

Well, answer this question, when does day exactly become night?

I understand the analogy, but when did I ever claim that day = night? I simply said that the above definition renders the word "irrational" fairly meaningless in the statement "belief that prayer can affect events is irrational" since "belief that prayer can affect events is rational" would also have to be true.

That is silly and tautalogical. The probability of a black cat being black is redundant and tells us nothing that we don't know by simply stating that the cat is black.

Exactly my point. The third item on the list was tautalogical as worded, and therefore should have been first on the list.

We can't use induction or deduction to arrive at a conclusion that the premises are true.

Nor can you use induction or deduction to arrive at the conclusion that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is true. You can only show that it is possible, not that it is true.

If the moon is made of green cheese then it is edible. That is a valid hypothetical but the premise is not true so the proposition that the moon is edible is false.

Exactly. And if I don't accept your premise of the probability of intelligent life existing outside of the solar system, then the proposition that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is also false.

I believe that I can live without eating any food because there are people who do this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breatharian).

That is definition (#1) and not (#3).

If you reword it as "I have reason to believe that I can live without eating any food because there are people who do this" then the word "reason" is definition #3. You can argue over how strong the reason (#1) is after the "because" but the word reason falls under definition #3.

Your statement # 1: We can't use induction or deduction to conclude that prayer works. In the end it is just your belief. However, WE CAN use induction to conclude that it doesn't work because all studies demonstrate that it doesn't work.

Your statement # 2: Clearly and demonstrably anecdotal. We can't use induction or deduction to come to a conclusion that the prayer cures cancer. We can use induction to come to a conclusion that the premise is not true because all studies demonstrate that it is not true.

Your statement # 2: We can't use induction or deduction to validate your belief. It is just your belief. It is no more valid than believing that you can live without food.

All arguments concerning the strength of the reasons. I happen to agree with your assessment of the reasons, but that's just my opinion.

No for (#3) Yes for (#2). The "reason" must be logical. We must be able to use induction or deduction to arrive at the validity of the premise to use (#3).

Oh, I didn't see that criteria in the definition #3. It simply said "an underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence." All of the reasons (#1) listed after "because" are underlying facts that provide logical sense for the premise "prayer works," therefore the statements themselves are examples of definition #3.

Prayer fits the definition so yes, I can.

Evidence, please. Because you say it's so doesn't make it so. IF prayer fits the definition THEN prayer is irrational. So show that prayer fits the definition. You cannot show that prayer is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. So how can you show that prayer fits the definition of "superstition" in order to support your claim that prayer is irrational by that definition?

No I did not.

I apologize. You said that you cannot show it for rabbit's feet:

Fallacy. I can't show that rabbit's feet are not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it. It's not my job to prove a negative.

I made an assumption that since you can't show it for rabbit's feet that you can't show it for prayer, which might not be the case. So, by all means please show that prayer is not related to the course of events that are believed to be influenced by it.

I can only make the argument. It is demonstrable that prayer fits the definition.

Then please demonstrate it.

-Bri

Bri

3rd August 2006, 10:37 AM

What you fail to understand Bri is that we can make estimates for each of the variables using logic and reason. It is not exact science but it is science.

According to your own source, logic and reason place the estimate somewhere between 0% and 100%. I can make the same estimate with the same degree of accuracy without logic and reason. Sorry, logic and reason don't help at all when there is no evidence upon which to use them. No objective criteria can make any particular value you place there better than any other (except perhaps "0" given the lack of evidence).

The difference is that the probability of prayer using your equation is completely arbitrary. There is no reason to assume those variables.

Likewise, there is no reason to assume the value that you placed into Drake's equation. That's my point. Given the current (lack of) evidence, there is no objective criteria upon which to base such a decision.

Scientists can come up with reasonable estimates based on their understanding of the universe. Huge difference.

What you fail to realize is that the "reasonable estimates" in this case range between 0% and 100% because of the lack of understanding of the universe outside of our own world. It is as reasonable to put in a 0% as to put in a 50% (probably moreso given the lack of evidence).

It's not that simple, scientists can use objective criteria to arrive at reasonable estimates.

But not when there is little or no evidence. Sorry, science can't arrive at reasonable estimates out of thin air any more than Christians can arrive at a reasonable estimate for the percentage of prayers that are answered by a God who might not want us to know for certain that he exists.

-Bri

I less than three logic

3rd August 2006, 11:08 AM

According to your own source, logic and reason place the estimate somewhere between 0% and 100%. I can make the same estimate with the same degree of accuracy without logic and reason. Sorry, logic and reason don't help at all when there is no evidence upon which to use them. No objective criteria can make any particular value you place there better than any other (except perhaps "0" given the lack of evidence).

Likewise, there is no reason to assume the value that you placed into Drake's equation. That's my point. Given the current (lack of) evidence, there is no objective criteria upon which to base such a decision.

What you fail to realize is that the "reasonable estimates" in this case range between 0% and 100% because of the lack of understanding of the universe outside of our own world. It is as reasonable to put in a 0% as to put in a 50% (probably moreso given the lack of evidence).

But not when there is little or no evidence. Sorry, science can't arrive at reasonable estimates out of thin air any more than Christians can arrive at a reasonable estimate for the percentage of prayers that are answered by a God who might not want us to know for certain that he exists.

-Bri
My impression is that somewhere between 0 and 100% means 0<x<100 not 0<=x<=100. So you can't have 0% nor 100%, and you wouldn't need 50%, given the size of the universe having a .000000000001% chance of having an Earth-like planet form around a Sun-like star you could still expect to find countless numbers of them. Also, I think you're not giving any weight to the fact that life exists here on Earth, which like it or not, is just another, very small, part of the universe. That, along with the possibility of other Earth-like planets, provides some, albeit a very small, amount of evidence supporting the idea that life may exist within other parts of the universe.

Beth

3rd August 2006, 11:22 AM

My impression is that somewhere between 0 and 100% means 0<x<100 not 0<=x<=100. My understanding of Drake's equation is that 0 and 100 are possible values for some of the variables.

Bri

3rd August 2006, 11:33 AM

My impression is that somewhere between 0 and 100% means 0<x<100 not 0<=x<=100. So you can't have 0% nor 100%, and you wouldn't need 50%, given the size of the universe having a .000000000001% chance of having an Earth-like planet form around a Sun-like star you could still expect to find countless numbers of them. Also, I think you're not giving any weight to the fact that life exists here on Earth, which like it or not, is just another, very small, part of the universe. That, along with the possibility of other Earth-like planets, provides some, albeit a very small, amount of evidence supporting the idea that life may exist within other parts of the universe.

Yes, you're right. 0% would mean that there is no chance at all that there is intelligent life outside of the solar system (i.e. 0% would mean that it's impossible). By the same token, the chances of God existing and of prayer working are greater than 0% also (meaning that it's possible).

I agree that there is weak evidence that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system -- enough that in my opinion a belief that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system cannot be considered necessarily irrational. It is also my opinion that the weak evidence for other beliefs such as prayer or God cannot be considered necessarily irrational for the same reason.

My point is that which beliefs you would consider to be "more rational" than others would be a matter of opinion, based on how you interpret the little evidence that is available.

My other point is that a statement such as "belief in prayer is irrational" isn't very meaningful when applied to unfalsifiable opinions unless you apply it to ALL unfalsifiable opinions, including those that might be generally considered rational. We all hold such opinions, and I don't think that the only rational opinion on such matters is to not have one.

-Bri

Bri

3rd August 2006, 11:53 AM

My understanding of Drake's equation is that 0 and 100 are possible values for some of the variables.

Yes, but only if you have reason to believe that any of the variables are impossible (i.e. that life cannot evolve on any other planets, that intelligent life can never evolve from that life, that intelligent life can never communicate with us, etc). The only reason I can think of to put 0% would be because of a complete lack of evidence, but even that isn't really a good reason to insist that it's impossible.

At any rate, the site doesn't allow you to put a 0% into its interactive calculator, although I imagine that numbers lower than the allowed values (0.0001%) could be reaonably argued. If you put in 0.0001% into fl and fi, leaving the others at their default, you get 0.00000001 communicating civilizations in the galaxy. Bottom line: if you believe that any of the variables have a very low probability of occurring, the equation will result in a very low probability of even 1 communicating civilization in the galaxy.

-Bri

Tricky

3rd August 2006, 01:14 PM

Well, I guess meaning is relative then. I will just insist that something can work without us knowing how it works...if you believe the earth is billions of years old this is pretty much the way it has *always* been, with the knowledge of how things work being a blip of a blip of a blip. Things have always worked, definitions notwithstanding.
Yes. But we still know what “working” means, even if we don’t know how, and we can show specific, objective outcomes which indicate working or not-working. With prayer, which at the minimum includes communication with God, you cannot tell if it is working because there is no specific, objective outcome that can be shown.

And if irrationality (as you and others see it) is not demonstrably irrational for everyone, how can you possibly call it irrationality?

The word to use isn't *can*, because clearly people can call things anything they want. Also, objective truth, imo, doesn't have to be demonstrably true for everyone. Properly defined, irrationality can be demonstrated for everyone.

But we are going to get into semantics again if we pursue this. I strongly disagree with your concept of objective truth. I could say “the world is flat, but I don’t have to demonstrate it for it to be true.”

I guess the analogy breaks down at "if it were exposed as a fake"...also, the heartfelt communication would be independent of outside intervention...as, with the letter, you'd need another *person* to get the letter to the son, whereas with prayer it's about the individual and God and nobody else. I’m aware that for many people, there is nothing that would expose God as a fake. Not the ineffectiveness of prayer, not theodicy, not anything.

Your phrase..."rational for them to believe it".

That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Not rational *independent* of the individual, but rational *for* the individual.
I said this to Bri, and I’ll say it again. Rationalizing is not the same thing as being rational. (IMO, as always). I do not agree that “rational” varies from person to person. If it did, there would be no insane asylums.

Maybe. Again, I'd prefer right or wrong. Right and wrong are independent of thinking process, which I think is the difference between rational and right/wrong. Rational/irrational is a process, right and wrong just are.
I wouldn’t want to confuse those concepts. Right and wrong are most often thought of as moral judgments. You can be rational, but still wrong (by my moral standards).

I'm trying to determine the vitality of the particular charge of irrationality. That may or may not be relevant. Since I view rationality/irrationality as closely associated with the individual, I'm also interested in the consequences of the matter to the individual. Consequences? I think I may see how you are using the word “rational”. You could say, “It is rational to believe in God because I’ll feel better if I do, and I want to feel better.” I suppose I can’t dispute that such a situation can be described as “rational”. Problem is, it makes everything rational. Substitute “kill my parents” for “believe in God” in the above sentence and it’s still rational, by that definition. I don’t think that is a particularly good way to define the word.

Of course I accept that God is an imaginary being to some. This is why I ask you if you have a definition of the phrase “imaginary being”. Start with the definition. See if God fits that definition. If He does, He is imaginary. If he doesn’t, try some other things like unicorns, fairies and flying spaghetti monsters, and if they also come up as “not imaginary”, then your definition may need some work.

Good question! I can't recall my/me ever saying, or telling someone, that something is imaginary. I'm sure I have. But nothing is coming to mind. Even with Santa Claus, and I've talked to several kids about Santa Claus...I've never told a kid that Santa Claus is imaginary. You look around and you see Santa Clauses. You talk about it reasonably with the kid...and whaddya know...at a certain age the kid comes to a realization and you don't have to be pedantic about it. No need to label the idea either.

Now, do I consider the idea of Santa Claus (guy living at the North Pole) imagainary? Sure. Do I obsess over that fact? No. I have an opinion about it, and I don't think about it that much. I only think about the fact that Santa Claus is imaginary when I am confronted with that statement on these boards. Believe it or not, most other communities have no need to dwell on that fact.

See, that’s the thing. You are changing your definition of “Santa Claus” for different purposes. Is he the guy in the fake beard at the department store, or is he the guy at the north pole? One of them is real and the other is imaginary, but they are not the same guy.

But I wouldn’t say we skeptics obsess over Santa or unicorns or other “imaginary” creatures. We use them as examples to show the characteristics of imaginary creatures so that one who does believe in imaginary beings can see how similar their beliefs are to Santa and unicorns.

Fair enough. I don't think you're an ubermensch. I’m not that clear on the concept, so I wouldn’t be insulted even if you did.

With search for truth, I think you'd agree with me that the skeptical person considers him/herself to be continually searching for truth. It doesn't stop. The non-skeptical person, or assuredly religious person, thinks that he/she has found the truth, and there's no need to keep searching. That doesn't mean that a religious person won't search for the truth in other avenues of course (maybe he/she is a detective or an auditor as a profession).

I'm just pointing out that the skeptic actually does believe that they have found the truth, and the truth is that they should continually search for the truth. That is the truth, and they are as dogmatic about that particular truth as religious are dogmatic about their religious truths.

That's what I meant when I brought up need. This need fuels the dogmatic belief that it is good to continually search for the truth and have threshholds for accepting truth and all that. I'm not placing a value judgment on that. I'm just saying that it's a need.
I always say that each of us is part skeptic and part believer. I don’t think you would find many if any believers who would agree that they have stopped searching for truth. Every one I’ve ever heard says they are still learning.

So we both look for truth. Where we differ is in what we think is the best way to find truth. I hold that truth must be the same for everyone. If I read you correctly, you believe that truth can be personal.

As far as “need” goes, I’d agree that I need to find truth, but I wouldn’t call that “religious”. I’d say that the history of mankind has been defined by that need.

See, the religious think that truth is *unavoidable*. Searching for it...I won't say it's a waste of time...but we're gonna be smacked upside the head with it in the next one. The other aspect is that of faith, which is basically anathema to most here (nevermind that I can prove that there is such a think as a skeptical faith, if only because you need to have faith in the value of being a skeptic to be a skeptic). Not only do we believe that it's good to have faith, but we're also commanded to have faith. And again, that's not talking about *everything*, of course you can be skeptical in worldly matters and non-skeptical in religious matters, although some here are probably skeptical of *that* as well.
I find it frustrating that so many believers try to equate skepticism with faith when they are polar opposites. Skepticism says “no” to belief without evidence. Faith requires belief without evidence. “The faith of skepticism” is about as nonsensical a phrase as “The god of atheism”. Let’s not let that serpent bite its tail.

Right. Now, when the Christian says that he/she is bearing a cross, we understand that we share in the suffering of Christ when we do just that. I think you're lacking that particular understanding.
The phrase is used in various ways. I understand the religious symbolism, but surely you know that many writers, including Christians, use it to mean “that is my own personal burden.” I used it in that sense, and as what was obviously a very lame jest.

Depends how you define fruit, or fruitless?
As in “not achieving what you set out for”, such as going to heaven. If there is no heaven, then all the time you spent working towards improving your post-life scenario will have been fruitless. Of course, the good you do while on Earth will not be fruitless, but that is true whether you do it in Jesus’ name or not.

If religious people have a dozen kids out of a sense of religious obligation, I think it would be absurd to call that a fruitless pursuit of life. A lot of great books have been written by religious types, great music, even great science.

I think we live lives. When we live, we do things. Wasting time is an external judgment, a subjective estimation. Do dogs and cats waste their lives anymore than people do? How about plants?

Of course you have the right to judge a Christian as having lived a complete waste of a life, but that's best kept to yourself in my opinion. Just an opinion is as welcome as picketting a person's funeral telling the dead that they were this that and the other thing because their worldview failed to correspond to your own.
I’m not even vaguely suggesting that Christians have “completely” wasted their lives. I’m just saying that the time they spent planning for their afterlife was wasted if it turns out there is none. Each one of those accomplishments you mention has happened (or will happen) whether you are correct or not about God. The pyramids are still marvelous, even if Tut was wrong about his deity.

I can see this unfortunate choice of words rankles you a bit. I apologize.

Try this for an analogy, considering our earthly life only.

Suppose Jack spends years planning his retirement. He makes vacation plans, studies books about foreign lands, reserves nice lodging in scenic locales et. al. Then suppose Jack drops dead of a heart attack on the day he retires. Did Jack waste his time? No, not really. He probably got a lot of pleasure doing that planning, but would he have had such pleasure if he had strong evidence that he was not going to be able to fulfill those plans? I’m guessing not. But still, it wasn’t a waste of time because there was a good chance that he was going to do all those things after he retired. After all, he had seen many retirees and heard them talk about what fun they had in exotic places. There was a whole bunch of evidence that many people do retire and have fun.

But suppose Jack had never seen a retiree and in fact never heard from a single person ever again after they retired. In short, he had no evidence that life after retirement existed. Would it then have been a waste of time to plan his retirement? I think, based on the evidence, you could say so.

Have you personally heard from a single person who has “retired” to heaven?

Even though I disagree with you about everything, I don't think you're wasting your life. How could you be wasting your life? You're living it, and it's not my place to judge you, even if you were the world's biggest procrastinator, because even then you'd be living your life and not wasting it. I guess suicide would qualify as a waste of life, but even then, maybe suicide may bring others to certain levels they wouldn't otherwise reach, I dunno. Again, I did not mean to suggest that you had wasted your life, only the time you spend planning for your afterlife when all you have ever seen is the brochure.

Exactly. That's my point. If I'm right, and you're wrong, we're still what we are, nothing has changed, my being right and you're being wrong doesn't change objective reality, and we'll both deal with the ramifications of the existence of God as best we can. If you're right and I'm wrong, we'll both be nothing, and that's about the only perfect equalizer in existence.
Agreed, as long as you keep Pascal out of the debate. ;)

I care in my own way, don't you think? :) Certainly. You even care about objective truth… sometimes. ;)

I think'll you'll get what you want eventually. I’d be glad if there was a loving and caring God. But I wouldn’t be glad if God existed as He is described in the Bible.

And the religious believe that everything is evidence of God's work. I guess it's contingent on the individual, but that's also basic theology. It’s pretty much a given. If you believe in a god that created everything, then you are going to think everything is evidence of that god. It doesn’t matter which god. Lightning is evidence of Zeus, right?

But before people had any conception of evidence (ummm...maybe just articulated conception?) they had a good handle on what was real and what wasn't. Also, I see no reason to be content with accepting things in a defined and confined reality, although I recognize that some can only be content with that. Again, it's up to the individual. Yes. It is up to the individual... sort of. I could not sincerely believe in Christ even if I tried (which I did, long ago), and I’m guessing you couldn’t force yourself to disbelieve in God.

Tricky

3rd August 2006, 01:24 PM

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 09:23 PM

The statement you made about God having the power to grant any prayer but choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does not seem to contradict any Christian belief that I've seen. Choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does contradict many Christian beliefs that I know of. Are your anecdotes somehow better than mine? I keep telling you that Christian belief isn't monolithic. There is a great diversity of belief.

They're all reasonable and logical. Any one of them could be true. Or there could be a reason that none of us knows about that could be true.This is irrational thinking. That all things are possible is not a basis for believing in anything other than all things are possible.

So, I was right when I said that all beliefs are irrational by that definition. No more than day = night. You are trying to create a false dichotomy. Rationality isn't an absolute. There is no reason to believe that there are absolute truths or absolutely rational arguments. All theories are held provisionally. This doesn't mean that every thing is both rational and irrational or equally rational and irrational.

To say that my logic leads to the conclusion that all beliefs are both rational and irrational is to say that all time is both day and night.

I'm sorry that you can't understand that.

Nor can you use induction or deduction to arrive at the conclusion that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is true. You can only show that it is possible, not that it is true. No, I can demonstrate that it is, to a degree, probable. That's the difference. The moon being made of green cheese is possible. It is not probable.

Exactly. And if I don't accept your premise of the probability of intelligent life existing outside of the solar system, then the proposition that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is also false.We can use induction to calculate the degree of probability. We can't for prayer.

If you reword it as "I have reason to believe that I can live without eating any food because there are people who do this" then the word "reason" is definition #3. No, it is (#1).

You can argue over how strong the reason (#1) is after the "because" but the word reason falls under definition #3. If this were correct then the dictionary would, by your logic, be tautological. To you #1 = #3.

Oh, I didn't see that criteria in the definition #3. It simply said "an underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence." All of the reasons (#1) listed after "because" are underlying facts that provide logical sense for the premise "prayer works," therefore the statements themselves are examples of definition #3. No, not "logical" sense. If the moon were made of cheese it would be edible is logically valid. It is not REASON to think we could eat the moon. "Logical sense" isn't anything logical. If I believed that the moon were made of green cheese then I would have motivation to build a rocket to go to the moon to eat it. That would fit #1, it wouldn't fit #3 because it doesn't really make "logical sense".

IF prayer fits the definition THEN prayer is irrational.Thank you.

su·per·sti·tion
n.

An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.What you fail to understand is that the dictionary isn't simply listing what superstition is. By your logic the superstition is A.) An irrational belief AND an action not logically related to a course of events. This is not correct. If it were then the dictionary would be making the very error that you are accusing me of. It would simply be lumping it into an irrational belief.

This idea of your is wrong. The dictionary, being the dictionary, is explaining why it is an irrational belief.

A superstition isn't logically connected to the events that they are supposed to be connected to.

Now, what is meant by "logically connected"? Does it mean any imaginable connection? No, it means that the connection should be obvious via inference.

Supernatural events are supernatural precisely because they lack such logical connections.

I can logically deduce that Zeus causes lightning but there is no logical connection between Zeus and lightning.

Then please demonstrate it. You can lead a horse to watter...

RandFan

3rd August 2006, 09:31 PM

According to your own source, logic and reason place the estimate somewhere between 0% and 100%. Between 0 and 100 isn't 0.

I can make the same estimate with the same degree of accuracy without logic and reason. None that any reasonable person would accept.

Likewise, there is no reason to assume the value that you placed into Drake's equation. That's not true, there is reason. Lot's of reason.

What you fail to realize is that the "reasonable estimates" in this case range between 0% and 100% because of the lack of understanding of the universe outside of our own world. It is as reasonable to put in a 0% as to put in a 50% (probably moreso given the lack of evidence). No, that is not correct. It is greater than zero and less that 100. Given the sheer number of galxies in our solar system it would be rather ignorant of what we actually do know about the universe to put it at Zero.

But not when there is little or no evidence. There's lot's of evidence to reason the probability of intelligent life outside of our solar system. There is no evidence to reason the probability of prayer.

RandFan

4th August 2006, 12:16 AM

Bri,

In Africa it is believed that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. Fathers are raping their young daughters and infecting them (the daughters) in the vain hope that this act, with no evidence and no logical connection to curing any disease or any explanation of how it might work (mechanism), will actually cure AIDS. It's simply believed that the sex act with a virgin, is somehow magical.

All things are possible, right?
This could be true, right?
Now, is it rational?

Fool's Poker: Reasoning about Faith (http://www.homestead.com/rationalview/files/Reasoning_About_Faith.htm)

If your car won't start and you pray about it, you are exhibiting faith. If you call a mechanic, you are applying reason. If you do both, you are straddling a fence.

But, then, how do you evaluate something? To evaluate is to judge. And to judge you need some standard of reference. The only legitimate standard is: reality. And what is man's means of grasping reality? Reason. Oh, and let us not forget about the "see if it makes logical sense" issue. What is "logical sense"? Logic, by definition, is the method of applying—you guessed it—reason.Acts 17:11 – Faith
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

ETA: Sorry, one more question. Bri, if you would, define for me reasonable doubt?

elliotfc

4th August 2006, 05:02 AM

I do believe that the New Testament is called a covenant, right? That's an agreement between two or more people, right? The agreement I made, once upon a time, was that I would worship and obey God, and in return, he would love me and help me.

The agreement that you made with God? Meaning, you made an agreement with God and you are certain he accepted the agreement?

Here is a specific definition of covenant as far as the Bible goes.
http://scriptures.lds.org/bd/c/98

I kept my end. God didn't.

Right, but God makes the terms of covenants and not us.

I said once before that this left me with only two alternatives: God hates me, or God isn't there.

Right, I don't see why God has to be confined to this dichotomy. It isn't even a dichotomy because one option is God's non-existence. But I do agree that since you have to see this as a dichotomy, you've picked the better of the two choices. It's better to think that God does not exist, than to think God hates you. So you're doing as well as you can as far as I can tell here.

I stand by that, and by my choice to believe God isn't there.
If he is, all he has to do is say so. If he is, he's the most cruel and neglectful parent I've ever heard of, and I have no use for one more ounce of cruelty in my ravaged life, thanks.

Well, if he is, then use is irrelevant, but I don't think objective reality is the issue here, so my point is also irrelevant. Do the best you can I guess.

-Elliot

elliotfc

4th August 2006, 05:09 AM

Yes, our allotments of miracles decrease in size, content and quality as our sophistication increases. There is something at work here that merits our deep suspicion.

I think it's akin to how, as a child grows up, the parent interferes less and less in the child's life. So you are correct, since an increase in sophistication is what is also seen as children grow up.

So now it is my turn to be pedantic, yes? I don't believe in crediting unsubstantiated presuppositions with any reality other than as conjectures.

I don't have a problem with this statement from you.

The metaphysical (I hesitate to use that much-abused term) value here is that either we've established a particular limit to what can be achieved physically in this context, or our understanding thereof (i.e. of that physical reality) is faulty. Either option constitutes valuable knowledge, but note that the latter, if unequivocally observed, would in a sense be a bona fide miracle until such time as we have an improved model of reality.

Right. I don't think that happenstances are contingent on our models of reality. Calling something a miracle has more to do with us then what has happened. It follows from our models of reality. And our models of reality have changed continuously, evolved, etc. I can be content with a working model of reality, but I don't have to make it into a god or anything. Meaning, if an anecdote doesn't conform to a working model of reality, so what? It happened or it didn't happen, that's my main question.

Now, do I have use for working models of reality. Sure. I have use for it. That's all. It isn't my end all and be all, my everything.

-Elliot

elliotfc

4th August 2006, 05:20 AM

You are equating faith with knowledge (which I clearly differentiated).

I don't know if I'm doing that or not...but could we leave that be for a wee bit.

Do we agree that, based on a general understanding of the Bible, that God wants us to know him through faith? That may or may not be a contradiction or a confusion of terms. We can get back to that. I'm just talking about a general conclusion/statement that can be made. We agree that most believers think that God wants us to know him by faith, right?

As for equating faith with knowledge...I think I'm not doing that. I think I'm making faith *greater* than knowledge...at least on this issue, the God issue. As in our knowledge of God follows from our faith in God, the faith coming first, the faith being superior.

I do not believe that you can "know" from faith. You can only "believe". Your dismissal of my conclusion is dismissed.;)

I can't prove you wrong at this moment in time, nor do I care to. If I'm right, and you're wrong, I'm not sure if even *that* could be proven to you. I, personally, would settle for verification of what I believe, that I know God through my faith. If that's verified, you can still maintain a contrary opinion, but it won't matter any more then, than it does now. We disagree is all. Knowledge, belief, faith, they're all really nice, really useful words. But if I can truly know by faith, it doesn't matter what a dictionary definition of knowledge is, nor does it matter if dictionarians beg to differ.

-Elliot

Cuddles

4th August 2006, 06:14 AM

No probably about it, there are planets around other stars. So far we've discovered 184 planets (this only includes planets around main sequence stars) and 97 planetary systems. :)
http://planetquest1.jpl.nasa.gov/atlas/atlas_index.cfm

None of these planets have been directly observed, their existence has been deduced from the motion or brightness variation of the star. While it seems extremely likely there are other planets there is no direct proof. Even if there were, the little data we have says very little about the abundance of planets since we can currently only detect very large planets close to their parent star. Until we can reliably detect planets of the order of Mercury at large distances from a star, and have surveyed a large proportion of stars in this galaxy we can make no sensible esstimate of the abundance of planets.

Demonstrably untrue.

Demonstate it then. Show me some evidence that would allow any of these probablities to be calculated rather than assumed.

Give me the equivalent of all of the galaxies in the universe and I would happily take that bet.

You would take a bet not knowing the probablity of winning and with no evidence that anyone has ever won?

Please do your homework properly before posting. It helps in minimising the incidence of fatuous statements such as the above.

'Luthon64

Please explain how this is fatuous. Temperature is defined by the kinetic energy of particles. At 0K they have 0 kinetic energy. To go any lower than this requires them to have imaginary velocity, which simply does not exist. With temperature, energy and velocity defined as they are today, my point stands.

Tricky

4th August 2006, 06:25 AM

Do we agree that, based on a general understanding of the Bible, that God wants us to know him through faith? That may or may not be a contradiction or a confusion of terms. We can get back to that. I'm just talking about a general conclusion/statement that can be made. We agree that most believers think that God wants us to know him by faith, right?
No, I don't agree to that at all. In the Bible, God and Jesus were often performing miracles and God was speaking aloud (or it seems that way from how it is written.) I don't seem to recall anything about how after Jesus is dead, no more good evidence of his divinity would be presented. That seems to be an assumption that is tacked on by some believers. But I also don't agree that most believers think that faith is the only aspect needed for belief. Many (most?) also believe in demonstrable miracles. Of course, they will fall back on "faith" if you ask them how they knew it was God doing the miracle, but they obviously think that God is doing something tangible.

I can't prove you wrong at this moment in time, nor do I care to. If I'm right, and you're wrong, I'm not sure if even *that* could be proven to you. I, personally, would settle for verification of what I believe, that I know God through my faith. LOL. What sort of verification are you looking for? Will you take it on faith?

We disagree is all. Knowledge, belief, faith, they're all really nice, really useful words. But if I can truly know by faith, it doesn't matter what a dictionary definition of knowledge is, nor does it matter if dictionarians beg to differ.

Yes, we disagree (politely though;) ). I cannot accept that two people can "know" things that are mutually contradictory, for example, a Christian can "know" that Jesus was the Messiah and a Muslim can "know" that Jesus was not the Messiah. Both are based on faith, yet they cannot both be factually correct. I do not see how such beliefs can be legitimately called "knowledge".

I acknowledge that some lexicographers include religious belief as one description of knowledge, but it would be a mistake to use that definition to conflate belief with factual knowledge.

elliotfc

4th August 2006, 06:29 AM

Yes. But we still know what “working” means, even if we don’t know how, and we can show specific, objective outcomes which indicate working or not-working. With prayer, which at the minimum includes communication with God, you cannot tell if it is working because there is no specific, objective outcome that can be shown.

So people who say they can tell that prayer is working in their lives...they would be wrong then? Or, is right/wrong irrelevant? Is it more that it's *impossible* to tell whether or not prayer is working in their lives, or is it that people are *wrong* when they say that prayer is working in their lives?

If it's a question of possible/impossible, others can think you're full of it, because others can insist that they can tell that prayer works, and you don't know what you're talking about. Possible/impossible is dependant on what can be done, and maybe others can do something that you can't do. That says more about you than it does about them.

Or, if it's they're simply wrong, I agree they can be wrong as far as you say..."a specific, objective outcome"...but I think that's something added to confirm what you want, prayer being wrong. Forget about a specific objective outcome (I'm not sure if you can). Prayer has been said, for thousands of years, to result in unexpected outcomes. So basically, you're ditching the Christian understanding of prayer by inserting "specific, objective outcome". Fine. I agree that without the Christian understanding of prayer you're making a useful point. But I do have that understanding, so I don't have as much use for your point as you do.

Properly defined, irrationality can be demonstrated for everyone.

I guess so. Or, if I would/could understand your specific defintion of irrationality (though I may disagree with it) I'm sure the label would follow from the definition.

But we are going to get into semantics again if we pursue this. I strongly disagree with your concept of objective truth. I could say “the world is flat, but I don’t have to demonstrate it for it to be true.”

Sure you could say that. People say lots of things. Just saying something doesn't make it objectively true.

I’m aware that for many people, there is nothing that would expose God as a fake. Not the ineffectiveness of prayer, not theodicy, not anything.

I don't have enough faith to believe that statement. :)

Here's a scenario. Let's say you're a minister, and you're in church with your family setting up for a prayer service. All of a sudden the Jesus on the crucifix turns into flesh and blood and...let's say rapes the minister's whole family and then flays them and then dismembers them. Then the Jesus says that he is an evil spirit, there is no God, Jesus was all a hoax, then he grabs the Bible and he eats it, and then he says after we all die it's only oblivion, then he snaps his fingers and the church bursts into flames. And as the minister burns to death, I think it's quite likely that he could be thinking that God has just been exposed as a fake.

I said this to Bri, and I’ll say it again. Rationalizing is not the same thing as being rational. (IMO, as always). I do not agree that “rational” varies from person to person. If it did, there would be no insane asylums.

But they're not called irrational societies, are they?

No offense, but I'm bored with the rational/irrational thing so I'll leave it alone. Ending with...I don't need to label people as irrational. If they are, fine. I'm not interetsed in a pursuit of who is irrational, when they are irrational, in what matters are they irrational, etc.

I wouldn’t want to confuse those concepts. Right and wrong are most often thought of as moral judgments. You can be rational, but still wrong (by my moral standards).

Agreed. That's why I introduced this point, because I *don't* confuse the concepts.

Consequences? I think I may see how you are using the word “rational”. You could say, “It is rational to believe in God because I’ll feel better if I do, and I want to feel better.” I suppose I can’t dispute that such a situation can be described as “rational”.

Just to clarify, that's not what I meant, or what I was thinking. I think believers in God have excellent reasons to believe in God, not just that it makes them feel better.

Problem is, it makes everything rational. Substitute “kill my parents” for “believe in God” in the above sentence and it’s still rational, by that definition. I don’t think that is a particularly good way to define the word.

Right, I wouldn't submit rationality to feel-good stuff.

This is why I ask you if you have a definition of the phrase “imaginary being”. Start with the definition. See if God fits that definition. If He does, He is imaginary. If he doesn’t, try some other things like unicorns, fairies and flying spaghetti monsters, and if they also come up as “not imaginary”, then your definition may need some work.

An imaginary being exists only in the imagination.

I don't believe that God fits that definition. If he does, you are right, he would be imaginary.

I think flying spaghetti monsters are imaginary. I think that some people have claimed to see unicorns, and maybe there have been horseys with a skull protuberance of some sort. As for fairies, I have mixed feelings.

I think that Christians reject imaginary beings all of the time by the way. For example, I'm continually rejecting imaginary conceptions of God. :)

See, that’s the thing. You are changing your definition of “Santa Claus” for different purposes. Is he the guy in the fake beard at the department store, or is he the guy at the north pole? One of them is real and the other is imaginary, but they are not the same guy.

OK.

We can go to the North Pole and look for Santa Claus. Maybe some people already have? I think that if you believe that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, you believe in an imaginary being.

But I wouldn’t say we skeptics obsess over Santa or unicorns or other “imaginary” creatures. We use them as examples to show the characteristics of imaginary creatures so that one who does believe in imaginary beings can see how similar their beliefs are to Santa and unicorns.

I agree that you need to think that God is as imaginary as Santa and unicorns. You can probably realize by now that the comparison does little to impress those who believe in God, and explain that one however you want.

So we both look for truth.

Yes.

Where we differ is in what we think is the best way to find truth.

Well, yeah, sort of. I'd say that we differ in that there can be *multiple* ways to find the truth, and some ways are better in some circumstances than in others. There is no singular way to find the truth.

I hold that truth must be the same for everyone. If I read you correctly, you believe that truth can be personal.

I think there is objective truth, and I also think that there is subjective truth. Of course I think objective truth is greater, but that doesn't mean subjective truth doesn't exist.

No, the truth doesn't *have* to be the same for everyone. Why? What's this *have to* about? People disagree about the truth all the time. They live lives, they die. How does *have to* come into play?

As far as “need” goes, I’d agree that I need to find truth, but I wouldn’t call that “religious”. I’d say that the history of mankind has been defined by that need.

You need to find the truth in a particular way is what I think I was meaning to say, or, you need the truth to conform to a chosen way of accepting truth.

I find it frustrating that so many believers try to equate skepticism with faith when they are polar opposites.

You need to have faith in skepticism to be a skeptic. Faith is greater than skepticism.

Skepticism says “no” to belief without evidence.

But you have faith in the value of that.

Faith requires belief without evidence.

I'd say it doesn't need overwhelming, rigorous evidence. I've said this before, the Bible *is* evidence. If there was no Bible, so much for the Christian faith. Of course I understand that you think it's either really bad evidence, or not evidence as far as scientific inquiry goes. But the believer can *always* point to something to back up their view, even if it's just words in a book, or anecdotal.

“The faith of skepticism” is about as nonsensical a phrase as “The god of atheism”. Let’s not let that serpent bite its tail.

Well it makes sense to me! I agree that there really is no god of atheism, but it has been and can be argued that atheism merely replaces worshipping of god. It fills that void. Thus the atheist is as dogmatic as the theist. Hell, the atheist would probably die for the atheistic belief just as a theist would. Or maybe not.

The phrase is used in various ways. I understand the religious symbolism, but surely you know that many writers, including Christians, use it to mean “that is my own personal burden.” I used it in that sense, and as what was obviously a very lame jest.

No, it wasn't lame, but we take the cross seriously in a sacred sense. Like if someone told me "yeah, I'm an drug addict, that's my cross to bear" but they use that to *enable* or *excuse* their behavior, I think that's pretty despicable. Why bring the cross into it? No, you didn't do anything like that. It's kind of like people (I've heard several) who say things like "I gave up church/religion for Lent" or something like that. Sure it's kind of funny I guess.

As in “not achieving what you set out for”, such as going to heaven. If there is no heaven, then all the time you spent working towards improving your post-life scenario will have been fruitless.

I see. At least in my case, I don't think of myself as trying to go to heaven. Of course millions and millions do. I'm not saying I'm better or worse than them for this difference. Let's say I'm worse. I just don't think about going to heaven. Mainly because I'm not sure what heaven is, and I have unconventional views of what comes next I think.

I think that all efforts bear fruit. Even if it isn't the *main* fruit, that doesn't mean you've wasted your time. Like lets say a scientist spends his life trying to discover a cure for cancer. He never does, but his research leads to other things. His life wasn't a waste just because he never achieved his main goal.

Of course, the good you do while on Earth will not be fruitless, but that is true whether you do it in Jesus’ name or not.

Agreed. And like the Bible says, even if we don't think we're doing something for Jesus, God has no problem telling us otherwise.

I’m not even vaguely suggesting that Christians have “completely” wasted their lives. I’m just saying that the time they spent planning for their afterlife was wasted if it turns out there is none.

OK, I think I see what you're saying now. Like, if someone is sitting in church kind of daydreaming on what heaven would be like. I guess that could/would be wasted time...but ya know...I think that even if there *is* a heaven, that activity would still be a waste of time. We have faith that God has made a special place for each of us. Leave that alone, and stop wasting your time dreaming about it.

But suppose Jack had never seen a retiree and in fact never heard from a single person ever again after they retired. In short, he had no evidence that life after retirement existed. Would it then have been a waste of time to plan his retirement? I think, based on the evidence, you could say so.

Sure, you could say so. It's his time, not mine. I think watching reality TV shows is a waste of time...but *my* time, not someone else's. Hey, if you think it's a waste of time to be religoius, then don't be religious. I don't walk around telling people they're wasting their time when they talk about American Idol, but I am cognizant of the fact that such things are a waste of *my* time. Other people ought to live their lives as they see fit, and I think my judgments...it isn't even that they would be unwelcome or unnecessary...I see the essential element is *myself*. I know what I think is a waste of time, and that's enough for me.

This isn't to say I don't identify time wasters. I've told many kids they're wasting their time when they come to piano/violin lessons. Because they get *nothing* out of it. It bears no fruit whatsoever. There isn't even a goal. It's something to do because your parents think it's neat to be able to tell their friends that their kid is learning an instrument.

Have you personally heard from a single person who has “retired” to heaven?

All the people I know who've died can't afford the postage.

Again, I did not mean to suggest that you had wasted your life, only the time you spend planning for your afterlife when all you have ever seen is the brochure.

If, when you say planning for your afterlife, you're talking about dreaming about what heaven is like, I agree that such a thing would be a waste of time for me. I also think that daydreaming in general is not the best way to use one's time. But daydreaming can also bear fruit, like it may give you ideas for poetry or a novel or something. I dunno.

Would I in general recommend that religious believers not spend time daydreaming about heaven? I think so, but I wouldn't be a doosh about it.

I’d be glad if there was a loving and caring God. But I wouldn’t be glad if God existed as He is described in the Bible.

He gets better as the book progresses, which I think is the point. :)

It’s pretty much a given. If you believe in a god that created everything, then you are going to think everything is evidence of that god. It doesn’t matter which god. Lightning is evidence of Zeus, right?

Right!

Yes. It is up to the individual... sort of. I could not sincerely believe in Christ even if I tried (which I did, long ago), and I’m guessing you couldn’t force yourself to disbelieve in God.

I'd be skeptical of those who did *force* themselves into a belief, or lack thereof. That doesn't mean you can't push youself in a certain direction, or consider many different things that you may be uncomfortable with, but that actual *click* just has to happen.

-Elliot

elliotfc

4th August 2006, 06:45 AM

No, I don't agree to that at all. In the Bible, God and Jesus were often performing miracles and God was speaking aloud (or it seems that way from how it is written.) I don't seem to recall anything about how after Jesus is dead, no more good evidence of his divinity would be presented.

But that's how it has turned out (basically), no?

And I shouldn't have even said *that*. The point of Jesus wasn't to provide evidence! That he is evidence, or performed miracles, that's all fine and good, but no miracles after Christ can compare with what he won for us.

Again, the concept of "good evidence" misses the boat entirely. Which is why my point about faith is accurate. You keep talking about good evidence, and I keep talking about faith. I can show you the word faith in hundreds of passages no doubt. And where in the Bible does it talk about "good evidence"?

So I'll reitereate my point. God wants us to know him through faith, and not through "good evidence". If you can show me parts of the Bible where it talks about the value of good evidence, I'll retract this point.

That seems to be an assumption that is tacked on by some believers.

A good hunk of Christian belief has followed post-Christ.

But I also don't agree that most believers think that faith is the only aspect needed for belief.

Of course it wouldn't be the only one, but it has to be the greatest one, wouldn't you agree?

Many (most?) also believe in demonstrable miracles.

True.

Of course, they will fall back on "faith" if you ask them how they knew it was God doing the miracle, but they obviously think that God is doing something tangible.

Agreed. I also believe something like this.

LOL. What sort of verification are you looking for? Will you take it on faith?

Well, if God tells me directly in the next one, would you also call that taking it on faith? Maybe, and if so, then faith is always necessary, for eternity, and there's nothing wrong in thinking that for a Christian.

Yes, we disagree (politely though;) ). I cannot accept that two people can "know" things that are mutually contradictory, for example, a Christian can "know" that Jesus was the Messiah and a Muslim can "know" that Jesus was not the Messiah.

But that knowledge follows from things that are assumed/accepted. We can understand why those knowns are known. Knowledge follows from the individual, or, an individual/group of individuals.

Both are based on faith, yet they cannot both be factually correct. I do not see how such beliefs can be legitimately called "knowledge".

Agreed, but I guess I'm thinking that facts and knowledge aren't the same thing. You can have knowledge of facts and you can have knowledge or errors.

I acknowledge that some lexicographers include religious belief as one description of knowledge, but it would be a mistake to use that definition to conflate belief with factual knowledge.

But if the belief corresponds to fact (lets leave out factual knowledge), it's a mistake without value.

-Elliot

Anacoluthon64

4th August 2006, 06:52 AM

I think it's akin to how, as a child grows up, the parent interferes less and less in the child's life. So you are correct, since an increase in sophistication is what is also seen as children grow up.Taken somewhat further, the upshot seems to be that, at some stage in the future (à la de Chardin's "Omega Point"), we shall no longer have any need for or of god, though I doubt you would willingly subscribe to such a notion. Am I wrong?

I don't think that happenstances are contingent on our models of reality.Nor am I proposing any such view. Instead, our models of reality, depending on their accuracy, provide the best available yardstick for gauging what is and what is not a miracle.

Calling something a miracle has more to do with us then what has happened. It follows from our models of reality. And our models of reality have changed continuously, evolved, etc. I can be content with a working model of reality, but I don't have to make it into a god or anything. Meaning, if an anecdote doesn't conform to a working model of reality, so what?The kicker is in the meaning that attaches to "so what?" If, as I suspect, it connotes indifference then physical reality surely can no longer offer up any surprises to you. On the other hand, as an earnest question, it would (and should!) prompt much curiosity about why the anecdote in question violates our model, and thereby lead to improved understanding.

Now, do I have use for working models of reality. Sure. I have use for it. That's all. It isn't my end all and be all, my everything.Yet it seems that you are loath to apply a similar utilitarian conception to god, i.e. viewing god as a working model of the total reality. Why is this?

'Luthon64

Anacoluthon64

4th August 2006, 07:32 AM

Please explain how this is fatuous.Because it totally misses the point of the argument. Of course we understand today the physical mechanisms at work in producing the emergent phenomenon called "temperature," and the reasons for there being a lower limit to it; moreover, such understanding (and the definitions it produced) has not been with us forever. And, additionally, none of this precludes the possibility of, say, a strange and unknown state of matter which would allow energy to be "borrowed" from the sample in such a way that it would manifest a sub-zero K temperature - a sort of "evaporative cooling" of matter, if you will, and ignoring the physical difficulties of measurement.

These things together were the point.

Now, please try to follow the argument instead of harping on about the palatability or otherwise of tangential details.

'Luthon64

hammegk

4th August 2006, 07:42 AM

Then why is the phrase "whatever you ask for you shall receive" continually supplied?

What constitutes the prayer? The thoughts, words, or behaviors? And over what time-frame should those be considered to be prayer?

Cuddles

4th August 2006, 07:53 AM

Because it totally misses the point of the argument. Of course we understand today the physical mechanisms at work in producing the emergent phenomenon called "temperature," and the reasons for there being a lower limit to it; moreover, such understanding (and the definitions it produced) has not been with us forever. And, additionally, none of this precludes the possibility of, say, a strange and unknown state of matter which would allow energy to be "borrowed" from the sample in such a way that it would manifest a sub-zero K temperature - a sort of "evaporative cooling" of matter, if you will, and ignoring the physical difficulties of measurement.

These things together were the point.

Now, please try to follow the argument instead of harping on about the palatability or otherwise of tangential details.

'Luthon64

The point I was arguing was this one :

In any case, believing prayer in and of itself to be capable of affecting the course of objective events is irrational for the same reason that believing that the sun will rise in the West tomorrow is irrational: each belief has an inordinately tiny probability of being true; in each case an extraordinarily problematical mechanism is required to bring about the reality of the belief, and in each case a violation of well-established understanding would occur.

Negative temperature does not just require a "problematic mechanism", it simply doesn't exist by definition. This is not simply a case of arguing that god can only do things that are logically possible, it goes deeper than this. If 1+1 is defined to be 2, then god cannot make 1+1=3, no matter how omnipotent he is.

Anacoluthon64

4th August 2006, 08:10 AM

Negative temperature does not just require a "problematic mechanism", it simply doesn't exist by definition. This is not simply a case of arguing that god can only do things that are logically possible, it goes deeper than this. If 1+1 is defined to be 2, then god cannot make 1+1=3, no matter how omnipotent he is.You are hereby defined out of existence.

'Luthon64

Bri

4th August 2006, 08:32 AM

Choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does contradict many Christian beliefs that I know of. Are your anecdotes somehow better than mine? I keep telling you that Christian belief isn't monolithic. There is a great diversity of belief.

I don't have any anecdotes. I said that I have not heard of nor seen any examples of what you're referring to. Please post some references to Christians who believe that God must grant all categories of prayer and I will thoroughly agree that the belief is irrational.

This is irrational thinking. That all things are possible is not a basis for believing in anything other than all things are possible.

I never said it was. You asked why God might choose to never answer a category of prayer despite his ability to do so if he chose. I simply answered your question.

No more than day = night. You are trying to create a false dichotomy.

You said yourself that "irrational" means that there is a degree of irrationality. You also admitted that there is a degree of irrationality in all beliefs. Therefore, the statement that all beliefs are irrational must be true by that definition.

If the above statement contains a false dichotomy, then you are the one creating it (I don't see the false dichotomy in that statement).

The point I was trying to make is that the statement "belief in prayer is irrational" (which you continued to make after posing the above definition) is fairly benign in light of the fact that all belief is irrational by that definition. The statement "belief in gravity is irrational" is also true by that definition.

The problem is that with your definition, the term "irrational" doesn't mean much by itself, without the qualifiers "more" or "less" and a comparison to another belief. For example, using your definition, the statement "belief A is more rational than belief B" makes sense, but the statement "belief A is irrational" although true is silly because all beliefs are irrational.

I would have suggested a different definition for the word "irrational" when used by itself to mean something like: at the extreme end of Tricky's Scale O' Rationality.

No, I can demonstrate that it is, to a degree, probable. That's the difference. The moon being made of green cheese is possible. It is not probable.

We can use induction to calculate the degree of probability. We can't for prayer.

I don't know what you mean by "degree of probability" as opposed to just "probability" but I admit that I'm weak in the area of statistics. Regardless, please calculate the [degree of] probability of intelligent life outside of our solar system (or cite such a calculation), including the degree of uncertainty. I think you'll find, in this case, the probability to be very similar to that of prayer (greater than 0% but less than 100%).

No, it is (#1).

If this were correct then the dictionary would, by your logic, be tautological. To you #1 = #3.

No, not "logical" sense. If the moon were made of cheese it would be edible is logically valid. It is not REASON to think we could eat the moon.

Correction: it is not a GOOD reason. Consider the sentence:

I have reason to believe that I can eat the moon because of the following reason: it is made of green cheese

The first occurrence of "reason" is definition #3 and the second is definition #1 even if you don't agree with the quality of the reason. In fact, you can use definition #3 without specifying a reason (#1) at all (i.e. "I have reason to believe that I can eat the moon.") Reason #3 makes no judgment of the validity of any evidence to support the premise.

What you fail to understand is that the dictionary isn't simply listing what superstition is.

Really? I believe that's exactly what a dictionary does.

By your logic the superstition is A.) An irrational belief AND an action not logically related to a course of events.

Close. By the definition you posted, a superstition is (A) irrational AND (B) a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. Just as a "crow" defined as "any of several large glossy black birds of the genus Corvus" means that a crow is (A) large AND (B) glossy AND (C) black AND (D) a bird AND (E) of the genus Corvus.

Although the dictionary definition doesn't require it, I've already accepted your premise that a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational. Now show that prayer is not logically related to the course of events that it is believed to influence. If you can't, then it doesn't follow from the premise that belief in prayer is irrational.

That doesn't mean that belief in prayer isn't irrational, only that it cannot be proven to be irrational from the premise you suggested. Your claim that prayer is "by definition" irrational based on the definition of "superstition" you posted is unfounded.

-Bri

Bri

4th August 2006, 08:41 AM

Between 0 and 100 isn't 0.

We have already discussed this, and I was mistaken when I suggested that 0% or 100% would be a reasonable probability. 0% would mean that it's impossible, and it's clearly not impossible; 100% would make it a fact, and it's clearly not a fact. Likewise, the probability of prayer working is between 0% and 100% (it's not impossible and it's not fact).

There's lot's of evidence to reason the probability of intelligent life outside of our solar system. There is no evidence to reason the probability of prayer.

There's as much reason to place the probability of intelligent life outside of the solar system at a very low number than to place it at a very high number.

-Bri

Tricky

4th August 2006, 08:49 AM

Or, if it's they're simply wrong, I agree they can be wrong as far as you say..."a specific, objective outcome"...but I think that's something added to confirm what you want, prayer being wrong. Forget about a specific objective outcome (I'm not sure if you can). Prayer has been said, for thousands of years, to result in unexpected outcomes. So basically, you're ditching the Christian understanding of prayer by inserting "specific, objective outcome". Fine. I agree that without the Christian understanding of prayer you're making a useful point. But I do have that understanding, so I don't have as much use for your point as you do.
Randomness has unexpected outcomes too. How can you know if the outcome was as a result of prayer, or just chance? It seems that you are saying that the Christian understanding of prayer is, “whatever the outcome, God did it.”

Sure you could say that. People say lots of things. Just saying something doesn't make it objectively true. Just saying “I have faith” doesn’t make something true either, yet Christians will argue that faith is enough to justify calling something “truth”.

Here's a scenario. Let's say you're a minister, and you're in church with your family setting up for a prayer service. All of a sudden the Jesus on the crucifix turns into flesh and blood and...let's say rapes the minister's whole family and then flays them and then dismembers them. Then the Jesus says that he is an evil spirit, there is no God, Jesus was all a hoax, then he grabs the Bible and he eats it, and then he says after we all die it's only oblivion, then he snaps his fingers and the church bursts into flames. And as the minister burns to death, I think it's quite likely that he could be thinking that God has just been exposed as a fake.
Yes, that would be one example of being wrong about Jesus and God. However in that scenario, they are still supernatural beings, but with different supernatural characteristics than what you had previously thought. So how could one convince you that Jesus and God don’t exist at all? Would their continued absence of activity do the trick? I’m guessing not.

But they're not called irrational societies, are they? No, asylums are not called that, but that’s one of the things that will get you a membership.

An imaginary being exists only in the imagination.

I don't believe that God fits that definition. If he does, you are right, he would be imaginary.

I think flying spaghetti monsters are imaginary. I think that some people have claimed to see unicorns, and maybe there have been horseys with a skull protuberance of some sort. As for fairies, I have mixed feelings.
So if a being exists in a place other than the imagination, how do you show that? Don’t say faith, because one could have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think that Christians reject imaginary beings all of the time by the way. For example, I'm continually rejecting imaginary conceptions of God.
Apparently not all of them.:p
I don’t know who said it first. “We are both atheists. I am just atheist about one more god than you.”

I agree that you need to think that God is as imaginary as Santa and unicorns. You can probably realize by now that the comparison does little to impress those who believe in God, and explain that one however you want.
I know it doesn’t impress you, but I like to keep you in practice thinking about it. ;) Maybe some day it will “click”.

I think there is objective truth, and I also think that there is subjective truth. Of course I think objective truth is greater, but that doesn't mean subjective truth doesn't exist.
I believe truth should be true. Subjective truth is more properly called “opinion” because there can be mutually conflicting subjective truths.

No, the truth doesn't *have* to be the same for everyone. Why? What's this *have to* about? People disagree about the truth all the time. They live lives, they die. How does *have to* come into play? Yes, people do disagree. I never claimed that we know all of the truth, but I do believe that when two people disagree about the truth, one or both of them are wrong. Perhaps we won’t know which, but we should try to find out as best we can by using means that will satisfy both sides of the discussion. I find evidence to be the best tool for that.

You need to have faith in skepticism to be a skeptic. No, you need evidence. And I have it. Lots of it.

I'd say it doesn't need overwhelming, rigorous evidence. I've said this before, the Bible *is* evidence. If there was no Bible, so much for the Christian faith. Of course I understand that you think it's either really bad evidence, or not evidence as far as scientific inquiry goes. But the believer can *always* point to something to back up their view, even if it's just words in a book, or anecdotal.

I agree the Bible is evidence. But a whole lot of the bible is contradicted by more recent evidence. Naturally when two pieces of evidence contradict each other, that contradiction needs to be resolved. In this case, the resolution that is obvious to me is that the recent evidence has more to back it up than the evidence of the Bible.

Well it makes sense to me! I agree that there really is no god of atheism, but it has been and can be argued that atheism merely replaces worshipping of god. It fills that void. Thus the atheist is as dogmatic as the theist. Hell, the atheist would probably die for the atheistic belief just as a theist would. Or maybe not. There is no dogma of atheism. And while I would not die for atheism itself, I’m pretty committed to freedom, including the freedom from religion.

I see. At least in my case, I don't think of myself as trying to go to heaven. Of course millions and millions do. I'm not saying I'm better or worse than them for this difference. Let's say I'm worse. I just don't think about going to heaven. Mainly because I'm not sure what heaven is, and I have unconventional views of what comes next I think.
I would agree that your views of Christianity are unconventional (and less dogmatic) than those of most Christians I have talked to.

I think that all efforts bear fruit. Even if it isn't the *main* fruit, that doesn't mean you've wasted your time. Like lets say a scientist spends his life trying to discover a cure for cancer. He never does, but his research leads to other things. His life wasn't a waste just because he never achieved his main goal.I don’t think that’s a good comparison. Only very (here’s that word again) irrational scientists would have a goal of “curing cancer”. They would be more like “work towards a cure of cancer”. Thus, any achievement helping humanity through their work could be counted as partial achievement of their goal. The same is not true of heaven (as it has been described to me). You either go there or you don’t. Perhaps your concept of heaven may include various levels, but still you can’t partially achieve your goal of going to heaven.

OK, I think I see what you're saying now. Like, if someone is sitting in church kind of daydreaming on what heaven would be like. I guess that could/would be wasted time...but ya know...I think that even if there *is* a heaven, that activity would still be a waste of time. We have faith that God has made a special place for each of us. Leave that alone, and stop wasting your time dreaming about it.
That’s sort of what I mean. I mean the things that you do because you want to get to heaven. Sorry to use the man in red again, but I would more compare it to working towards your dream of one day meeting Santa Claus (the one at the North Pole). You might spend your whole life learning how to make toys (and even have your ears surgically altered to look like an elf), but no matter how good a toymaker you became, you would still fail in your goal, though you would not have wasted your life because you still made great toys. However, any time you spent wondering about what Santa wanted would be wasted.

All the people I know who've died can't afford the postage.
If you have to rely on the post office even there, then how can you call it Heaven? ;)

He gets better as the book progresses, which I think is the point.

He started out perfect and got better?

I'd be skeptical of those who did *force* themselves into a belief, or lack thereof. That doesn't mean you can't push youself in a certain direction, or consider many different things that you may be uncomfortable with, but that actual *click* just has to happen. All right podnuh. Take ten paces and turn around. We’ll see who clicks first.

RandFan

4th August 2006, 08:54 AM

I don't have any anecdotes. I said that I have not heard of nor seen any examples of what you're referring to. AKA Anecdotal

You said yourself that "irrational" means that there is a degree of irrationality. You also admitted that there is a degree of irrationality in all beliefs. No, not quite. Only that I don't view the world with absolutes. There are two extremes. On one side is irrational and the other rational. I usually see that something is more rational or more irrational. Just as I see that there are two extremes of darkness and light and a gradient in between. I don't need to believe that all things are both rational and irrational and more than I see things as both dark and light.

Consider this, the sun rising tomorrow has a degree of probability. I don't view the sun rising as both likely and unlikely. Do you view the sun rising as both likely and unlikely? It is more likely than unlikely that the sun will rise therefore I see it as simply likely that the sun will rise.

Therefore, the statement that all beliefs are irrational must be true by that definition.No.

The point I was trying to make is that the statement "belief in prayer is irrational" (which you continued to make after posing the above definition) is fairly benign in light of the fact that all belief is irrational by that definition. The statement "belief in gravity is irrational" is also true by that definition. Only if you accept the statement that the sun will rise is unlikely. Because there is a degree of likely and unlikely.

Correction: it is not a GOOD reason. Consider the sentence:

I have reason to believe that I can eat the moon because of the following reason: it is made of green cheeseThe first occurrence of "reason" is definition #3 and the second is definition #1 even if you don't agree with the quality of the reason. In fact, you can use definition #3 without specifying a reason (#1) at all (i.e. "I have reason to believe that I can eat the moon.") Reason #3 makes no judgment of the validity of any evidence to support the premise.
I think you have your # back wards. #1 is simply a motivation. #3 is logical reason. "Not a GOOD reason" would not fit with #3.

Really? I believe that's exactly what a dictionary does. That is exactly what it doesn't do in THIS case.

Close. By the definition you posted, a superstition is (A) irrational AND (B) a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. Just as a "crow" defined as "any of several large glossy black birds of the genus Corvus" means that a crow is (A) large AND (B) glossy AND (C) black AND (D) a bird AND (E) of the genus Corvus. Then the dictionary is guilty of the error you accused me of.

This raises the question, What is irrational and why is superstition irrational?

I've already accepted your premise that a belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational. Thank you.

Now show that prayer is not logically related to the course of events that it is believed to influence. If you can't, then it doesn't follow from the premise that belief in prayer is irrational. This is not how it works. This is fallacy. This assumes that if I can't prove a negative then the negative is wrong. Wrong, it is incumbent on the person who believes that there is a connection to demonstrate the connection.

What is the logical connection between prayer and an outcome?

That doesn't mean that belief in prayer isn't irrational, only that it cannot be proven to be irrational from the premise you suggested. Your claim that prayer is "by definition" irrational based on the definition of "superstition" you posted is unfounded. Since it can't be shown that there is a logical connection then it is irrational.

Bri

4th August 2006, 08:56 AM

All things are possible, right?
This could be true, right?
Now, is it rational?

Straw man. We've been talking about unfalsifiable beliefs on this thread. The belief you stated is not only falsifiable, but there is far more evidence against it than for it.

ETA: Sorry, one more question. Bri, if you would, define for me reasonable doubt?

It's usually used as a legal term, and I couldn't find a simple definition for it.

-Bri

RandFan

4th August 2006, 09:02 AM

Straw man. We've been talking about unfalsifiable beliefs on this thread. The belief you stated is not only falsifiable, but there is far more evidence against it than for it. :) Please to tell me how such a belief is falsifiable and prayer isn't?

Would such a belief that raping virgins be rational if it was simply believed that it doesn't always work?

It's usually used as a legal term, and I couldn't find a simple definition for it. Please tell me what YOU think it means. It is very important.

ETA: What is the evidence for prayer? I have been saying all along that there is far more evidence agaisnt prayer than there is for it.

RandFan

4th August 2006, 09:12 AM

REASONABLE DOUBT (http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm) - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. Defendant is on trial for murder. There is a video tape of the defendant committing the crime. His fingerprints are found at the crime scene. Blood and semen matching the defendant were found at the crime scene. Eyewitnesses saw the defendant at the crime scene. The defendant does not present a defense.

One of the jurors prays at the end of trial and believes that god tells her that the man is not guilty. Is her belief rational? Is her doubt, "reasonable"? Why or why not?

If one person kills another because they believe God wants them to kill people is that reasonable? Is that rational?

RandFan

4th August 2006, 09:14 AM

Bri

4th August 2006, 12:52 PM

:) Please to tell me how such a belief is falsifiable and prayer isn't?

You said that it is believed that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. If the belief is that it sometimes cures AIDS, then unfortunately it is unfalsifiable. However, it is still a straw man since, as I said, there is far more evidence against such a belief than for it, and we were talking about beliefs for which there is little evidence either way.

Please tell me what YOU think it means. It is very important.

If someone is accused of a crime, a reasonable doubt would mean that there is doubt that the accused committed the crime. If a person is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it means that the evidence of guilt clearly outweighs the evidence of innocence.

ETA: What is the evidence for prayer? I have been saying all along that there is far more evidence agaisnt prayer than there is for it.

There is very little evidence for or against prayer, particularly in conjunction with belief in a God who might not want us to know for certain of his existence.

-Bri

Bri

4th August 2006, 12:54 PM

AKA Anecdotal

Saying that I've not seen any evidence of something (anecdotal or otherwise) is anecdotal? I'm asking you to produce the anecdotal evidence that you claim to have. Let's see it.

You said yourself that "irrational" means that there is a degree of irrationality. You also admitted that there is a degree of irrationality in all beliefs.

No, not quite. Only that I don't view the world with absolutes.

Then perhaps I misunderstood when you said:

Irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality.

and

I was using your definition: irrational means that there is a degree of irrationality. Can you name a belief that doesn't have a degree of irrationality?

I don't hold absolute positions. I can't name one for you. Gravity has worked since recorded history. No theory has been proposed to demonstrate that it doesn't.

I don't hold that a belief in gravity is absolutely rational. I hold that it is one of the most rational beliefs. I can postulate some theories where it could be viewed as irrational.

Moving on...

There are two extremes. On one side is irrational and the other rational. I usually see that something is more rational or more irrational.

Exactly my point. If you see something as more rational or less rational (more irrational), then why continue to make statements like "belief in prayer is irrational" which is meaningless without comparison to something else. You continue to make such statements even after offering the above definition.

I think you have your # back wards. #1 is simply a motivation. #3 is logical reason. "Not a GOOD reason" would not fit with #3.

No idea what you're talking about. They are fairly clearly recognizable because #1 can be written as "a reason" while #3 is usually written just "reason" in the form "reason to believe X" where X is the proposition.

That is exactly what it doesn't do in THIS case.

Oh, in the case of THIS word, the dictionary doesn't simply provide its definition. OK.

Then the dictionary is guilty of the error you accused me of.

I accused you of using a dictionary definition of a category of belief to try to prove that a particular belief must fit into that category. No, I've looked through all my dictionaries and don't see any list of what fits into the category "superstition" and what doesn't.

This raises the question, What is irrational and why is superstition irrational?

Superstition is irrational by definition. Prayer is not superstition by definition (at least by no definition that I've seen).

Thank you.

You're welcome. I accepted it long ago. Unfortunately, it doesn't advance your argument any.

This is not how it works. This is fallacy. This assumes that if I can't prove a negative then the negative is wrong. Wrong, it is incumbent on the person who believes that there is a connection to demonstrate the connection.

No, RandFan, I never said that because you can't prove a negative that your assumption (that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational) is wrong. I said that you cannot prove it to be right. BIG difference. I'm not making a claim that belief in prayer is rational, only that it's not necessarily irrational.

What is the logical connection between prayer and an outcome?

God is generally believed to be the logical connection between prayer and an outcome. IF (huge "IF") you can prove that there is no logical connection between the prayer and the outcome (i.e. that God doesn't exist, that God doesn't grant any prayers, etc.), THEN you can prove that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational according to your premise.

Since it can't be shown that there is a logical connection then it is irrational.

This (faulty) conclusion is based on a different premise.

-Bri

Bri

4th August 2006, 01:49 PM

What does "based upon reason" mean?

Reason is a synonym for logic. So, "based upon reason and common sense" means "based upon logic and common sense."

-Bri

RandFan

4th August 2006, 06:40 PM

I'm asking you to produce the anecdotal evidence that you claim to have. Let's see it.I'm sorry, how do I demonstrate to you my life's experiences? They are anecdotal. And why should your observations mean anything? My experiences are different than yours that's all. It is demonstrable that there are diverse beliefs. There are some very bizzare beliefs. I know people that believe that God can grant any prayer he chooses. He doesn't grant every prayer but he is not limited by anything or anybody.

Exactly my point. If you see something as more rational or less rational (more irrational), then why continue to make statements like "belief in prayer is irrational" which is meaningless without comparison to something else. The sun will rise tomorrow. Belief in prayer is irrational. It's that simple. Those two things are not absolute. That they are not absolute does not mean that prayer is rational.

No idea what you're talking about. They are fairly clearly recognizable because #1 can be written as "a reason" while #3 is usually written just "reason" in the form "reason to believe X" where X is the proposition. No.

#1 The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Note at because (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=because). This fits ANY thing that causes something else. Belief that god will answer prayers as a motivation to pray fits this defintion.

#3 An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence: There is reason to believe that the accused did not commit this crime. This definition requires that the underlying fact or cause provide "logical sense". Prayer doesn't provide "logical sense".

Oh, in the case of THIS word, the dictionary doesn't simply provide its definition. OK. ? Not a clue what you are on about.

1. The dictionary is providing a definition of the word.
2. When it lists things it usually puts them in numerical format, like this.
3. In this instance the dictionary is telling us that A.) The belief is irrational B.) Because it is a belief that an unrelated act an influence events.

Notice that the definition doesn't use the word "and" to conjoin "irrationa belief" and "action". And if you take out "irrational belief" would the definition make sense?

An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.Question: What is the irrational belief?
Answer: That an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

QED

I'm not making a claim that belief in prayer is rational, only that it's not necessarily irrational. Bri's Logic: A belief that prayer can influence the outcome of events is not necasarily irrational.

This raises a question, is a beleif that raping a virgin can influence the outcomeof events necassarily irrational?

God is generally believed to be the logical connection between prayer and an outcome. "God"? Can we replace "God" with magic? To be reasonable, to make logical sense it must be based on something that we can use as a standard. Do you have anything or any reason to suppose that God exists or grants prayers?

No? Well, that answers that. It is just superstition because there is NO logical conclusion. Saying "God did" it is meaningless without faith.

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. --Hebrews 11:1

RandFan

4th August 2006, 06:55 PM

Reason is a synonym for logic. So, "based upon reason and common sense" means "based upon logic and common sense."Ok, then work with me here,

1.) Defendant is on trial for murder. There is a video tape of the defendant committing the crime. His fingerprints are found at the crime scene. Blood and semen matching the defendant were found at the crime scene. Eyewitnesses saw the defendant at the crime scene. The defendant does not present a defense.

One of the jurors prays at the end of trial and believes that god tells her that the man is not guilty. Is her belief rational? Is her doubt, "reasonable"? Why or why not?

This one isn't going a way Bri. It is very important to my argument. So you might as well address it.

2.) Oh, and you forgot about the very real belief that raping virgins can cure aids.

It might have actually worked a few times.
There are people who testify that it works.
Can you prove that it has never worked?
All things are possible.
It could be true.
Is this belief "not necessarily irrational"?

3.) The Bible tells us that God sometimes wants people to kill for him. If one person kills another person because they believe God wants them to kill people is that belief "not necessarily irrational"?

1., 2., 3...

RandFan

4th August 2006, 08:27 PM

From Randi's comentary:

Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakable, in spite of not being based upon evidence. Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief

No, she admitted, her expected and promised recovery had not taken place. Also, she told us, Popoff had gotten some important details wrong when “divining” facts about her. When, accompanied by enthusiastic “hallelujahs,” she’d been commanded to walk across the stage without her supporting walker, she’d already known she could do that, but it had been looked upon as a miracle by the audience. In short, nothing at all had happened to her other than the use of her presence on stage in a farce that she fully recognized as such. When the interviewer asked her if this had diminished her faith at all, she smiled, looked down, and shook her head. “No, no,” she said softly, “Reverend Popoff is a man of God. I still believe.” She paused, then as she turned and walked away hunched over her walker, she repeated, “I still believe” – a confirmed “faith-sufferer.”(emphasis mine)

In the face of evidence to the contrary we are supposed to believe that this is rational? Peter Popov having been exposed as a fraud on national TV is still plying his trade BTW, raitionality? Really?

Bri

7th August 2006, 05:57 AM

I'm sorry, how do I demonstrate to you my life's experiences? They are anecdotal. And why should your observations mean anything? My experiences are different than yours that's all. It is demonstrable that there are diverse beliefs. There are some very bizzare beliefs.

My observations don't mean any more than yours. I simply said that I haven't had any observations at all of people who believe that God must grant all categories of prayers. You claimed that you knew people who believed this, and I asked you to post a link to a website or any evidence of someone who believes this and I'll admit that their belief is irrational.

I know people that believe that God can grant any prayer he chooses. He doesn't grant every prayer but he is not limited by anything or anybody.

Now, this belief I have heard of (and is not contradicted by the scripture you've cited), although it is quite different from the belief you claimed to know of a few posts back:

Choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does contradict many Christian beliefs that I know of.

I was simply asking for evidence since you claimed to know of some.

That they are not absolute does not mean that prayer is rational.

I never said that belief in prayer was necessarily rational, only that it's not necessarily irrational.

Notice that the definition doesn't use the word "and" to conjoin "irrationa belief" and "action". And if you take out "irrational belief" would the definition make sense?

Question: What is the irrational belief?
Answer: That an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

The definition makes grammatical sense (but would be incomplete) without the word "irrational." So, "that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome" is the belief being referred to. In order to be considered superstition by this definition, the belief would also have to be irrational.

This discussion about dictionary definitions is getting quite silly, especially since I've already conceded your premise that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational (whether or not the dictionary definition requires it). Unfortunately, you still cannot prove that prayer fits the premise since Christians believe there to be a relation between the action and the course of events influenced by the action.

If you'd like to continue to believe that the dictionary proves that prayer is irrational, there's probably nothing further I can do to convince you otherwise. In my opinion that is an irrational belief, but perhaps you have a better reason for believing it than you've posted here.

Bri's Logic: A belief that prayer can influence the outcome of events is not necasarily irrational.

This raises a question, is a beleif that raping a virgin can influence the outcomeof events necassarily irrational?

This will continue to be a straw man regardless of how often you write it.

"God"? Can we replace "God" with magic? To be reasonable, to make logical sense it must be based on something that we can use as a standard. Do you have anything or any reason to suppose that God exists or grants prayers?

Any reasons I might have to suppose that God exists or grants prayers is irrelevant. The question is whether Christians have reason to believe that God exists or grants prayers, and I'm fairly certain that they do.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2006, 06:00 AM

In the face of evidence to the contrary we are supposed to believe that this is rational? Peter Popov having been exposed as a fraud on national TV is still plying his trade BTW, raitionality? Really?

No, the evidence to the contrary is evidence to the contrary, which is why this is a straw man. We were discussing beliefs for which there is little evidence either way.

-Bri

Tricky

7th August 2006, 06:33 AM

The question is whether Christians have reason to believe that God exists or grants prayers, and I'm fairly certain that they do.
That is one of the questions. But one must also ask the question, "What kind of reason do they have to believe that God exists or grants prayers?" Can it be any reason whatsoever? If so, then nothing in the world is irrational (including the raping of virgins to cure AIDS.) If not, what separates the "good" reasons from the "bad" reasons?

Do you believe there can be invalid reasons to believe a thing?

Bri

7th August 2006, 06:33 AM

Ok, then work with me here,

I'm trying. I really am.

1.) Defendant is on trial for murder. There is a video tape of the defendant committing the crime. His fingerprints are found at the crime scene. Blood and semen matching the defendant were found at the crime scene. Eyewitnesses saw the defendant at the crime scene. The defendant does not present a defense.

One of the jurors prays at the end of trial and believes that god tells her that the man is not guilty. Is her belief rational? Is her doubt, "reasonable"? Why or why not?

This one isn't going a way Bri. It is very important to my argument. So you might as well address it.

Given only the evidence you presented (including the very weak evidence by the juror claiming that God told her the man is innocent) I would have to say that the man is guilty were I a juror. From my perspective, the evidence against the accused is much greater than the evidence of his his innocence. Does that mean that the juror who claims to have spoken with God is necessarily irrational? No. She could be irrational based on the skimpy information you've provided. Specifically, we have no way of knowing why she believes as she does and doesn't question her own sanity. Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine how she could possibly believe as she does without coming to the conclusion that she's insane. Perhaps she IS insane (in which case her belief is probably irrational). It may even be impossible for her to convince me that she's not insane. But is she necessarily insane? Is her belief necessarily irrational? No, she may in fact have a good reason for believing as she does.

2.) Oh, and you forgot about the very real belief that raping virgins can cure aids.

Again, this is a straw man. Even if the belief was true (that rape sometimes results in a cure) it wouldn't justify rape. Even if the cure was guaranteed it wouldn't justify rape.

3.) The Bible tells us that God sometimes wants people to kill for him. If one person kills another person because they believe God wants them to kill people is that belief "not necessarily irrational"?

See above.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2006, 06:43 AM

That is one of the questions. But one must also ask the question, "What kind of reason do they have to believe that God exists or grants prayers?" Can it be any reason whatsoever? If so, then nothing in the world is irrational (including the raping of virgins to cure AIDS.) If not, what separates the "good" reasons from the "bad" reasons?

Do you believe there can be invalid reasons to believe a thing?

Yes, a reason that contradicts available evidence, or a reason that contradicts itself (i.e. is logically inconsistent) would probably be invalid.

The raping virgins thing is a straw man. The belief that raping a virgin can sometimes cure AIDS would not justify the act even if it were true.

-Bri

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:12 AM

Given only the evidence you presented (including the very weak evidence by the juror claiming that God told her the man is innocent) I would have to say that the man is guilty were I a juror. From my perspective, the evidence against the accused is much greater than the evidence of his his innocence. Does that mean that the juror who claims to have spoken with God is necessarily irrational? No. She could be irrational based on the skimpy information you've provided. Specifically, we have no way of knowing why she believes as she does and doesn't question her own sanity. Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine how she could possibly believe as she does without coming to the conclusion that she's insane. Perhaps she IS insane (in which case her belief is probably irrational). It may even be impossible for her to convince me that she's not insane. But is she necessarily insane? Is her belief necessarily irrational? No, she may in fact have a good reason for believing as she does. You don't really get to change the hypothetical. You see, it's my hypothetical. She believes what she believes, that God talked to her and told her the man was innocent. No more, no less, I realize that the hypothetical makes you uncomfortable but you will just have to deal with it, or, you can obfuscate which is where I guess you are going to go.

For most of us this isn't a difficult proposition that we need to wring our hands over. Her behavior is irrational. Period, full stop end of story.

Again, this is a straw man. Even if the belief was true (that rape sometimes results in a cure) it wouldn't justify rape. Even if the cure was guaranteed it wouldn't justify rape. No, this is NOT a strawman but you are making one. I'm not talking about JUSTIFICATION. I'm talking about rationality. So stick with MY argument and not the one you want to make. Is the belief necassarily irrational?

See above.See above

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:22 AM

My observations don't mean any more than yours. I simply said that I haven't had any observations at all of people who believe that God must grant all categories of prayers. You claimed that you knew people who believed this, and I asked you to post a link to a website or any evidence of someone who believes this and I'll admit that their belief is irrational. I will ask you one more time, how do I post a link to my life experiences?

Now, this belief I have heard of (and is not contradicted by the scripture you've cited), although it is quite different from the belief you claimed to know of a few posts back:You mean the strawman you are trying to force on me, no, sorry. This is all that I have ever claimed and it IS contradicted by the scripture that I cited.

The definition makes grammatical sense (but would be incomplete) without the word "irrational." So, "that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome" is the belief being referred to. In order to be considered superstition by this definition, the belief would also have to be irrational. This violates your own argument that a belief can't simply be declared irrational. You aren't making sense.

This discussion about dictionary definitions is getting quite silly, especially since I've already conceded your premise that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome is irrational (whether or not the dictionary definition requires it). Unfortunately, you still cannot prove that prayer fits the premise since Christians believe there to be a relation between the action and the course of events influenced by the action. That is what you just are not getting. Every superstitions is based on the belief that the act is related.

The problem, Bri, is that there is no connection that is demonstrable, it is not logical. I can believe that my pink magic marker is connected to the weather but belief is NOT ENOUGH. There has to be a logical connection, something that is reasonable, something that isn't just belief.

If you'd like to continue to believe that the dictionary proves that prayer is irrational, there's probably nothing further I can do to convince you otherwise. In my opinion that is an irrational belief, but perhaps you have a better reason for believing it than you've posted here. Since prayer is an action that can't be demonstrated or explained how it is connected to any event then it is, by definition, irrational.

This will continue to be a straw man regardless of how often you write it.How is it a straw man, it isn't even an argument, it is a question that you refuse to answer, why? Is the belief irrational, yes or no?

Any reasons I might have to suppose that God exists or grants prayers is irrelevant. The question is whether Christians have reason to believe that God exists or grants prayers, and I'm fairly certain that they do.You have no idea what those reasons are but you are fairly certain they exist, this is irrational. Why would you suppose such a notion?

Tricky

7th August 2006, 07:22 AM

Yes, a reason that contradicts available evidence, or a reason that contradicts itself (i.e. is logically inconsistent) would probably be invalid.
If faith alone makes a thing valid, then nothing based on faith can be logically invalid, e.g. if God can do anything, then anything God does is not logically invalid.

The raping virgins thing is a straw man. The belief that raping a virgin can sometimes cure AIDS would not justify the act even if it were true.
Thats morality you're talking about. I'm asking about rationality. There are probably many things that Christians do that other religions/cultures find morally repugnant, but does that does not make them logically invalid. So it is not a straw man at all. It is a faith-based belief, just like prayer. As such, it is just as rational as prayer, even if morally repugnant, wouldn't you agree?

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:28 AM

3.) The Bible tells us that God sometimes wants people to kill for him. If one person kills another person because they believe God wants them to kill people is that belief "not necessarily irrational"? Just want to be certain that this question is not forgotten. Please answer it. It is a valid question. There is historical context for the question. Even if there wasn't it would still be valid however the fact that God is quoted in the Bible many times as having told people to kill in his name gives additional reason for asking the question. So, are you going to tell us simply whether the belief is rational or not? Or are you too uncomfortable with it? Justification is not the issue. All that matters is the belief, is it necassarily irrational, yes or no?

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:33 AM

No, the evidence to the contrary is evidence to the contrary, which is why this is a straw man. We were discussing beliefs for which there is little evidence either way. For some excellent reasons why prayer is irrational please see http://skepdic.com/prayer.html

Bri

7th August 2006, 07:44 AM

You don't really get to change the hypothetical. You see, it's my hypothetical. She believes what she believes, that God talked to her and told her the man was innocent. No more, no less, I realize that the hypothetical makes you uncomfortable but you will just have to deal with it, or, you can obfuscate which is where I guess you are going to go.

I have no idea where you got the idea that I changed your hypothetical. I simply pointed out that you didn't provide me with enough information to make a definitive determination, although I did concede given only the information you gave me, the likelihood of the accused's guilt. It is also my opinion that the belief of the juror in question is probably, but not necessarily, irrational.

For most of us this isn't a difficult proposition that we need to wring our hands over. Her behavior is irrational. Period, full stop end of story.

(emphasis mine) I don't believe you stated her actual behavior in your hypothetical, so if you have come to the conclusion that her behavior is irrational, it would be due to some information that you haven't shared with us. It would be my opinion that her belief is probably irrational. However, most of us would also agree that it's only an opinion that her belief is irrational, and that it's possible that her belief is not irrational. In other words, her belief is not necessarily irrational.

No, this is NOT a strawman but you are making one. I'm not talking about JUSTIFICATION. I'm talking about rationality. So stick with MY argument and not the one you want to make. Is the belief necassarily irrational?

No, you're purposely using that particular example because you wish to confuse the rationality of a belief with the rationality of acting on that belief.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2006, 08:00 AM

I will ask you one more time, how do I post a link to my life experiences?

Then (as I said) I will agree that someone who believes that God must grant all categories of prayer holds an irrational belief, and will stick with my opinion that few if any actual Christians hold such a belief.

You mean the strawman you are trying to force on me, no, sorry. This is all that I have ever claimed and it IS contradicted by the scripture that I cited.

Again, I cited your previous post where you made quite a different claim than this one, unless you are now claiming that the following refer to identical beliefs:

I know people that believe that God can grant any prayer he chooses. He doesn't grant every prayer but he is not limited by anything or anybody.
Choosing not to grant some categories of prayer does contradict many Christian beliefs that I know of.

They seem quite different to me.

This violates your own argument that a belief can't simply be declared irrational. You aren't making sense.

No idea what you mean. That a superstition isn't a superstition without being irrational has little to do with whether a prayer is a superstition unless you assume that prayer is irrational. If you assume that a prayer is irrational, then you're not proving prayer to be irrational based on the definition.

That is what you just are not getting. Every superstitions is based on the belief that the act is related.

Correct, which is why you cannot prove that any particular belief is a superstition by definition. The word is used to categorize certain beliefs that you think are both irrational and concern actions unrelated to the events they are believed to cause.

Since prayer is an action that can't be demonstrated or explained how it is connected to any event then it is, by definition, irrational.

Even if a belief in prayer was actually irrational, it's not by definition irrational. Nothing in that definition refers specifically to prayer.

You have no idea what those reasons are but you are fairly certain they exist, this is irrational. Why would you suppose such a notion?

I know their reasons exist because Christians (including elliotfc) have given you their reasons. Whether you or I accept these reasons as valid evidence that prayer works is another matter.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2006, 08:04 AM

If faith alone makes a thing valid, then nothing based on faith can be logically invalid, e.g. if God can do anything, then anything God does is not logically invalid.

Don't overstate my argument. I never said that faith alone makes something valid. I said that faith doesn't make it necessarily invalid.

Thats morality you're talking about. I'm asking about rationality. There are probably many things that Christians do that other religions/cultures find morally repugnant, but does that does not make them logically invalid. So it is not a straw man at all. It is a faith-based belief, just like prayer. As such, it is just as rational as prayer, even if morally repugnant, wouldn't you agree?

If that is the case, then you just answered your own question.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2006, 08:11 AM

Just want to be certain that this question is not forgotten. Please answer it. It is a valid question. There is historical context for the question. Even if there wasn't it would still be valid however the fact that God is quoted in the Bible many times as having told people to kill in his name gives additional reason for asking the question. So, are you going to tell us simply whether the belief is rational or not? Or are you too uncomfortable with it? Justification is not the issue. All that matters is the belief, is it necassarily irrational, yes or no?

Again, you are putting forth an example which is a straw man, just like the second proposition you posted. You are hoping to confuse the rationality of a belief with the morality of acting on that belief. Whether or not the belief is necessarily rational is not related to whether it is right or wrong to act on the belief. In this case, you are also throwing in some Bible stories to confuse the issue further.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2006, 08:30 AM

For some excellent reasons why prayer is irrational please see http://skepdic.com/prayer.html

The article you cited doesn't contain the word "irrational." That said, I agree with the author's opinion that there is reason to believe that prayer doesn't work. I never claimed otherwise. I did say that Christians may also have reason to hold the opposite opinion.

BTW, the article you posted has a better definition of "miracle" than the one you previously posted (in my opinion), since it doesn't require the miracle to be obvious and doesn't suggest any particular purpose of the miracle. Using the definition from the article, prayers are believed to result in miracles, whereas using your previously posted definition prayers may result in other less obvious violations of the laws of nature that wouldn't qualify as "miracles."

-Bri

Tricky

7th August 2006, 08:45 AM

Don't overstate my argument. I never said that faith alone makes something valid. I said that faith doesn't make it necessarily invalid.
Okay. I'll try again

Position 1 is based on faith and faith alone, and you believe it is valid.
Position 2 is based on faith and faith alone, and you believe it is invalid.

What criteria did you use to decide 1 was valid and 2 was invalid?

If that is the case, then you just answered your own question.
I have? Why don't you show me this is the case by telling me what that answer is. Do you agree with my answer?

Bri

7th August 2006, 09:37 AM

Okay. I'll try again

Position 1 is based on faith and faith alone, and you believe it is valid.
Position 2 is based on faith and faith alone, and you believe it is invalid.

What criteria did you use to decide 1 was valid and 2 was invalid?

I have no idea what criteria you used. I said that faith alone doesn't make something necessarily valid or necessarily invalid. Therefore, I would have to disagree with both propositions.

I have? Why don't you show me this is the case by telling me what that answer is. Do you agree with my answer?

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that the rationality of a belief doesn't necessarily indicate the morality of using that belief to justify action. I agree with this. For example, if one believes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, this belief wouldn't necessarily justify murder regardless of the fact that it is a rational opinion.

-Bri

Tricky

7th August 2006, 10:23 AM

I have no idea what criteria you used. I said that faith alone doesn't make something necessarily valid or necessarily invalid. Therefore, I would have to disagree with both propositions.
Then what is it that makes something valid or invalid. Do you have a way of determining the validity of a statement?

I Unless I am misunderstanding you, you are saying that the rationality of a belief doesn't necessarily indicate the morality of using that belief to justify action. I agree with this.
That is correct. Then you agree that raping to prevent AIDS is just as rational as praying to God because since both of them are based on faith and faith alone, the morality of the of the act does not affect its rationality.

I For example, if one believes that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our galaxy, this belief wouldn't necessarily justify murder regardless of the fact that it is a rational opinion.
Oy vey! Again with the aliens? Frankly, I'm having a hard time figuring out a way that accepting the possiblity that intelligent life may exist somewhere else in the universe could possibly be twisted to justify murder. On the other hand, I know of several instances where praying has triggered someone to commit murder.

Bri

7th August 2006, 10:50 AM

Then what is it that makes something valid or invalid. Do you have a way of determining the validity of a statement?

I've already listed several ways of determining a statement invalid. Otherwise, I've heard of no objective means by which one statement can be determined invalid and another can be determined valid when little or no evidence is available. Again, by what criteria do you determine statements such as "intelligent life exists outside of the solar system" are more valid than other statements for which there is little evidence either way?

That is correct. Then you agree that raping to prevent AIDS is just as rational as praying to God because since both of them are based on faith and faith alone, the morality of the of the act does not affect its rationality.

Again, you are confusing actions (raping to prevent AIDS and praying to God) with beliefs. Furthermore, the two actions you are attempting to compare are not equivalent. I'll assume this straw man was unintentional.

Oy vey! Again with the aliens? Frankly, I'm having a hard time figuring out a way that accepting the possiblity that intelligent life may exist somewhere else in the universe could possibly be twisted to justify murder. On the other hand, I know of several instances where praying has triggered someone to commit murder.

Tricky, you simply lack imagination! Let's say that a scientist so strongly believes that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system that he goes to great lengths to prove it. In order to do so, he spends 30 years of his life convincing politicians that the government should spend millions of dollars on a large-scale project to try to discover evidence. Let's say that there is one particularly outspoken and powerful politician who backs up this scientist's efforts, but at the last minute decides it more important to spend the millions to help feed the hungry here on earth and threatens to squash 30 years of hard work. Furthermore, although the scientist points out to the politician that other intelligent life might hold the key to solving the hunger problem, this politician vows that as long as he lives, he will use his considerable power to prevent the government from spending a single dollar on such a project until the problem of world hunger is solved. So...the scientist decides to murder the politician.

Then you agree that murder is just as rational as praying to God because since both of them are based on faith and faith alone, right?

Do you now see the straw man?

-Bri

slingblade

7th August 2006, 11:39 AM

I've already listed several ways of determining a statement invalid. Otherwise, I've heard of no objective means by which one statement can be determined invalid and another can be determined valid when little or no evidence is available.

Wiki:

In logic, the form of an argument is valid precisely if it cannot lead from true premises to a false conclusion. An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true. For example: "All A are B; some A are C; therefore some B are C" is a valid form.

A formula of logic is said to be valid if it is true under every interpretation (also called structure or model). See also model theory or mathematical logic.

A tautology, or tautologous formula, is truth functionally valid. Not all valid formulas of quantificational logic are tautologies.

Tricky

7th August 2006, 11:42 AM

I've already listed several ways of determining a statement invalid. Otherwise, I've heard of no objective means by which one statement can be determined invalid and another can be determined valid when little or no evidence is available. Again, by what criteria do you determine statements such as "intelligent life exists outside of the solar system" are more valid than other statements for which there is little evidence either way?
All I've heard is "logical contradiction" as a way to invalidate a statement. But we've been through the difference between "unavailable data" versus "local data" before. I cannot see that explaining it to you again would make any difference.

Again, you are confusing actions (raping to prevent AIDS and praying to God) with beliefs. Furthermore, the two actions you are attempting to compare are not equivalent. I'll assume this straw man was unintentional.
Praying is an action. They are both actions based on solely on beliefs. There is no difference as far as the validity of the action goes. They are equivalent actions, not a straw man.

You lack imagination. Let's say that a scientist so strongly believes that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system that he goes to great lengths to prove it. In order to do so, he spends 30 years of his life convincing politicians that the government should spend millions of dollars on a large-scale project to try to discover evidence. Let's say that there is one particularly outspoken and powerful politician who backs up this scientist's efforts, but at the last minute decides it more important to spend the millions to help feed the hungry here on earth and threatens to squash 30 years of hard work. Furthermore, although the scientist points out to the politician that other intelligent life might hold the key to solving the hunger problem, this politician vows that as long as he lives, he will use his considerable power to prevent the government from spending a single dollar on such a project until the problem of world hunger is solved. So...the scientist decides to murder the politician.
Wow, quite a scenario propose there. And yet, it is not the same. Unless you are arguing that the scientist was TOLD by the aliens to murder the politician, (something I would definitely consider irrational) then it is nothing like a person murdering someone because God told them to.

Remember this little scenario you created next time you tell someone else they are using a straw man.

Then you agree that murder is just as rational as praying to God because since both of them are based on faith and faith alone, right?
Only if the murder is based on faith and faith alone. One person talks to God and He tells that person to give money to the church, so the person does it. Another person talks to God and He tells that person to put poison into kool-aid, so that person does it. Both of them have acted based on prayer. Both are, irrational acts, but with different outcomes.

Do you now see the straw man?
I see one big convoluted one.

Bri

7th August 2006, 12:04 PM

Praying is an action. They are both actions based on solely on beliefs. There is no difference as far as the validity of the action goes. They are equivalent actions, not a straw man.

Do you really mean to imply that praying and raping someone are equivalent actions? If so, I respectfully disagree. Nonetheless, as you admitted, the rationality of a belief doesn't necessarily indicate the morality of using that belief to justify action. Therefore, the morality of actions are irrelevant to a discussion of the rationality of belief, despite the temptation to confuse the two. I assumed this straw man to be unintentional, but as you continue to make the argument, it seems less and less likely to be unintentional.

Wow, quite a scenario propose there. And yet, it is not the same. Unless you are arguing that the scientist was TOLD by the aliens to murder the politician, (something I would definitely consider irrational) then it is nothing like a person murdering someone because God told them to.

I don't recall any previous mention that the belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS came from a conversation with God, aliens, or anyone else. So, if the belief didn't come from a conversation with God or aliens, is raping a virgin any less morally repugnant?

Only if the murder is based on faith and faith alone.

What part of the scientist's belief wasn't based on faith alone? Are you referring to the very weak evidence showing that intelligent life is possible outside of the solar system? There is also weak evidence showing that prayer works.

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2006, 12:09 PM

Wiki:

An argument is said to be valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the conclusion is true.

OK, so please present such a logical argument that belief in prayer is necessarily invalid. I suspect that any such argument for which the premises are true will also apply to other beliefs that have been previously claimed to be valid, such as belief that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system.

I simply don't think you'll find a logical formula for determining the truth of opinions concerning the unfalsifiable, particularly the unfalsifiable for which there is little evidence either way.

-Bri

Tricky

7th August 2006, 12:31 PM

Do you really mean to imply that praying and raping someone are equivalent actions? If so, I respectfully disagree.
Don't forget the "based on faith" part, Bri. When you leave out little things like that, you change the topic. If both are based on faith, they are rationally equivalent. But you knew that was what we were talking about.

Nonetheless, as you admitted, the rationality of a belief doesn't necessarily indicate the morality of using that belief to justify action. Therefore, the morality of actions are irrelevant to a discussion of the rationality of belief, despite the temptation to confuse the two. I assumed this straw man to be unintentional, but as you continue to make the argument, it seems less and less likely to be unintentional.
This is what I have been telling you, Bri. Are you paying attention?

I don't recall any previous mention that the belief that sex with a virgin cures AIDS came from a conversation with God, aliens, or anyone else. So, if the belief didn't come from a conversation with God or aliens, is raping a virgin any less morally repugnant?
It is a religious belief. Most people who do this do so because their shaman or witch doctor (who speaks to the spirits) has told them it will work. It is essentially a religious ritual, like praying is a religious ritual.

What part of the scientist's belief wasn't based on faith alone? The biggest straw man is of course that belief in the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere is not the same as belief in the certainty of intelligent life elsewhere. Then of course, the demand for money is not a faith-based thing but greed-based thing. And of course, his anger at the politician is based on his feeling of betrayal and the broken "promise" that the politician made. And of course, the reasoning that the aliens would figure out how to end world hunger is giving the aliens specific characteristics, nothing at all like believing in the possibility of intelligent life of some kind.

I could go on and on, but the simple fact is that this is a totally straw-filled scenario, one that has, as far as I am aware of, no basis in reality. But people have killed because God told them to. Many times.

There is also weak evidence showing that prayer works. Very weak. And yet, with all the praying that goes on and all the things it could affect that would be very easy to see, the weakness of the evidence is damning.

I less than three logic

7th August 2006, 01:09 PM

Seems to be becoming a heated discussion here. I'd just like to add my :twocents: really quick.

I think it can be rational to believe in the possibility of extrasolar intelligent life and also the possibility of God existing. Note, that this is the possibility only, no certainty involved. However, I think it would be just as irrational to believe that talking to God, which may or may not exist, can change anything as it would be to talk to the extrasolar intelligence, which may or may not exist, for the same effect.

Tricky

7th August 2006, 02:14 PM

I think it can be rational to believe in the possibility of extrasolar intelligent life and also the possibility of God existing. Note, that this is the possibility only, no certainty involved. However, I think it would be just as irrational to believe that talking to God, which may or may not exist, can change anything as it would be to talk to the extrasolar intelligence, which may or may not exist, for the same effect.
This is sort of the position that RandFan took when he said the "Deist God" was rational. The position is that as long as you put no restrictions whatsoever on the characteristics of God, then believing in God is essentially the same thing as believing in nature. But if that is the case, why add in God at all? Is there a rational reason to rename "nature" to God?

However, as soon as you start giving God traits, like "He listens to prayers", then such a belief is irrational in the absence of evidence for such listening. Sure, you could say "He listens but doesn't do anything", but once again, you are reducing God to something exactly resmbles no-god.

If you say "God is good", well we know what "good" normally means, so that claim requires evidence. If you counter with "we don't know what 'good' means to God," then our buddy Occam slices Him out of the equation again. If you can't tell whether or not your God is doing "good", then there is no difference between that concept of God and no-god.

And I agree, talking to aliens is less rational than believing they might exist.

I less than three logic

7th August 2006, 02:56 PM

This is sort of the position that RandFan took when he said the "Deist God" was rational. The position is that as long as you put no restrictions whatsoever on the characteristics of God, then believing in God is essentially the same thing as believing in nature. But if that is the case, why add in God at all? Is there a rational reason to rename "nature" to God?

However, as soon as you start giving God traits, like "He listens to prayers", then such a belief is irrational in the absence of evidence for such listening. Sure, you could say "He listens but doesn't do anything", but once again, you are reducing God to something exactly resmbles no-god.

If you say "God is good", well we know what "good" normally means, so that claim requires evidence. If you counter with "we don't know what 'good' means to God," then our buddy Occam slices Him out of the equation again. If you can't tell whether or not your God is doing "good", then there is no difference between that concept of God and no-god.

And I agree, talking to aliens is less rational than believing they might exist.
I think you may have read too much into my statement. :)

I simply meant that it is rational to believe the possibility, that God exists, exists. Not that belief in God is rational, which is why I fall into the atheist category. If asked, "Do you believe God exists?" My answer would be, "No, I don't believe God exists." However, if asked, "Does God exist?" My answer would be, "I don't know."

From my point of view, there is not enough evidence to prove God does not exist, that whole "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" thing. However, there most certainly isn't enough evidence on the other side to support a belief in God's existence either.

Now, as for Bri's comparison to the belief in God vs. the belief in other intelligent life in the universe, I see a striking difference in the two. That is simply the size of the universe. To the belief in God this makes no difference at all, no matter what the size the possibility of God remains constant. This isn't true for the possibility of other life. The larger the universe the greater possibility for life, and given the nearly inconceivable size of the universe, the probability that this is the only place life occurred would equally inconceivable, although not impossible.

RandFan

7th August 2006, 06:33 PM

Then (as I said) I will agree that someone who believes that God must grant all categories of prayer holds an irrational belief, and will stick with my opinion that few if any actual Christians hold such a belief.Fine, we disagree.

They seem quite different to me.There is little I can do about your perception.

No idea what you mean. That a superstition isn't a superstition without being irrational has little to do with whether a prayer is a superstition unless you assume that prayer is irrational. If you assume that a prayer is irrational, then you're not proving prayer to be irrational based on the definition.No, I'm not ASSUMING anymore than the dictionary is assuming.

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

They are identical, no assuming on the part of the dictionary and no assuming on my part. It is irrational because there is no connection. I don't say it very often but it called for here. QED

Correct, which is why you cannot prove that any particular belief is a superstition by definition. You should contact the dictionary. They will be surprised of your assertion. Don't count on a change in definition.

Even if a belief in prayer was actually irrational, it's not by definition irrational. Nothing in that definition refers specifically to prayer. Actually, it does. Prayer is an action that is not logically connected to the events it is supposed to influence.

If you ever care to demonstrate a connection then please do so. Until it is just an unsupported claim.

RandFan

7th August 2006, 06:35 PM

Again, you are putting forth an example which is a straw man, just like the second proposition you posted. You are hoping to confuse the rationality of a belief with the morality of acting on that belief. Whether or not the belief is necessarily rational is not related to whether it is right or wrong to act on the belief. In this case, you are also throwing in some Bible stories to confuse the issue further. No, I am not.

Just answer the question, regardless of morality, is it necessarily irrational?

RandFan

7th August 2006, 06:38 PM

I have no idea where you got the idea that I changed your hypothetical. I simply pointed out that you didn't provide me with enough information to make a definitive determination... Thats BS, there is NO other information. Based on that information is it necessarily irrational?

...although I did concede given only the information you gave me, the likelihood of the accused's guilt. It is also my opinion that the belief of the juror in question is probably, but not necessarily, irrational. We'll we know where you stand. That's BS.

(emphasis mine) I don't believe you stated her actual behavior in your hypothetical, so if you have come to the conclusion that her behavior is irrational, it would be due to some information that you haven't shared with us. It would be my opinion that her belief is probably irrational. However, most of us would also agree that it's only an opinion that her belief is irrational, and that it's possible that her belief is not irrational. In other words, her belief is not necessarily irrational. Based on the information provided there is only one rational conclusion. She is irrational.

No, you're purposely using that particular example because you wish to confuse the rationality of a belief with the rationality of acting on that belief.???

Bri

7th August 2006, 06:55 PM

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

They are identical, no assuming on the part of the dictionary and no assuming on my part. It is irrational because there is no connection. I don't say it very often but it called for here. QED

You seem to have made up this second definition (the one for prayer). It isn't in any dictionary I can find (much less The Free Dictionary, which seems to list the definition you posted for "superstition" word for word). Using those two definitions, indeed prayer is a form of superstition. However, nobody uses that definition of prayer, least of all Christians.

You should contact the dictionary. They will be surprised of your assertion. Don't count on a change in definition.

There is little need for me to change dictionary definitions since I wasn't the one who claimed that prayer is irrational by definition. It would be nice if you could provide a dictionary definition that supports your claim, but instead you seem to have just made one up.

Actually, it does. Prayer is an action that is not logically connected to the events it is supposed to influence.

If you ever care to demonstrate a connection then please do so. Until it is just an unsupported claim.

I never claimed that there was a connection. You made the claim that there was no connection, so it is up to you to back it up with evidence.

-Bri

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:02 PM

The article you cited doesn't contain the word "irrational." I'm sorry, I assumed you had read the earlier post.
Introduction (http://skepdic.com/intro.html)

The Skeptic’s Dictionary provides definitions, arguments, and essays on subjects supernatural, occult, paranormal, and pseudoscientific. I use the term “occult” to refer to any and all of these subjects.

...

Also, it seems to be true that belief in the irrational is as appealing to the true believer as belief in the rational is to the hardened skeptic. According to many soft skeptics, whether one chooses a life devoted to rationality or irrationality is a matter of faith. For a good period of my adult life, I was a soft skeptic who believed that my commitment to rationality was as much an act of faith as my earlier commitment to Catholicism had been. For years I remained open to the possibility of all sorts of occult phenomena. My studies and reflections in recent years have led me to the conclusion that there is a preponderance of evidence against the reasonableness of belief in any occult phenomena. I have also concluded that choosing rationality over irrationality is not an act of faith at all. To even pose the question as one requiring thought to answer demonstrates the futility of claiming everything can be reduced to faith. One must use reason to argue for faith. While I do not deny that the consequences of believing in the occult are often beneficial, I do deny that such consequences have anything to do with establishing the reality of occult phenomenaThe author makes it quite plain that, in his opinion, any belief in the occult is irrational. It's my opinion also

That said, I agree with the author's opinion that there is reason to believe that prayer doesn't work. I never claimed otherwise. I did say that Christians may also have reason to hold the opposite opinion.They may have cause but as the author states, there is a preponderance of evidence against the reasonableness of belief in any occult phenomena. In other words, it is irrational.

BTW, the article you posted has a better definition of "miracle" than the one you previously posted (in my opinion), since it doesn't require the miracle to be obvious and doesn't suggest any particular purpose of the miracle. Using the definition from the article, prayers are believed to result in miracles, whereas using your previously posted definition prayers may result in other less obvious violations of the laws of nature that wouldn't qualify as "miracles." I'd be happy to discuss and debate such definitions. The bottom line is that the belief is irrational.

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:09 PM

You seem to have made up this second definition (the one for prayer). I have no idea how you can sit there and say that. It is clear that they are the same. Prayer is but one of many such superstitions, by definition.

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. How are they different?

It isn't in any dictionary I can find...
Here is one more that is not in the dictionary.

Belief that a horse shoe can bring good luck is an irrational belief that an object that is not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

You better notify the dictionary. And, BTW, your argument is silly.

I never claimed that there was a connection. You made the claim that there was no connection, so it is up to you to back it up with evidence. You just defined everything that was otherwise considered superstitious to be rational because we can't prove a negative. The dictionary definition by your logic can never be met. How do you prove a negative. Now a belief in Santa Claus in the face of evidence to the contrary is not necessarily irrational? Nice job for critical thinking Bri.

Bri

7th August 2006, 07:11 PM

From my point of view, there is not enough evidence to prove God does not exist, that whole "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" thing. However, there most certainly isn't enough evidence on the other side to support a belief in God's existence either.

I can agree with this, but keep in mind that you're suggesting that beliefs that others on this thread have already deemed "rational" are irrational. If you're willing to concede that all beliefs for which there is little or no evidence are irrational, then I'll agree to that, but it means that the only rational opinions on such matters are agnostic opinions (i.e. having no opinion at all). If, on the other hand, you think that having an opinion on such matters is not necessarily irrational, then it cannot be rational to hold one opinion but irrational to hold the opposite opinion when there is little or no evidence supporting either opinion.

Now, as for Bri's comparison to the belief in God vs. the belief in other intelligent life in the universe, I see a striking difference in the two. That is simply the size of the universe. To the belief in God this makes no difference at all, no matter what the size the possibility of God remains constant. This isn't true for the possibility of other life. The larger the universe the greater possibility for life, and given the nearly inconceivable size of the universe, the probability that this is the only place life occurred would equally inconceivable, although not impossible.

The size of the universe may provide evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, but it is very weak evidence at best that intelligent life actually exists elsewhere. There is simply no hard evidence of it. In that regard, a belief that intelligent life does exist elsewhere is quite similar to belief that God does exist. If one is necessarily irrational because it has little evidence to support it, then both must be (as must be the opposite opinions).

-Bri

Bri

7th August 2006, 07:27 PM

I have no idea how you can sit there and say that. It is clear that they are the same. Prayer is but one of many such superstitions, by definition.

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

How are they different?

From where did you get this definition for "prayer" RandFan? Please cite your source. The one for "superstition" appears to be from The Free Dictionary. Where is the definition of "prayer" from?

Here is one more that is not in the dictionary.

Belief that a horse shoe can bring good luck is an irrational belief that an object that is not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

You better notify the dictionary. And, BTW, your argument is silly.

RandFan, if you're going to claim that something is irrational by definition, you may actually want to post a dictionary definition that supports your claim. Otherwise, you're just making up definitions that nobody uses.

You just defined everything that was otherwise considered superstitious to be rational because we can't prove a negative. The dictionary definition by your logic can never be met. How do you prove a negative. Now Santa Claus exists. Nice job for critical thinking Bri.

No, I didn't claim that prayer is rational by definition, therefore I didn't need to redefine prayer at all. You claimed prayer to be by definition irrational, so you had to change the definition for "prayer" to support your claim.

The dictionary's purpose is to provide a definition for words like "superstition," not to make judgments about what must fall under them. For example, although a Christian may believe that premarital sex falls under the definition of "evil" (defined in the dictionary as "morally bad or wrong") you won't see the word "evil" or "morally wrong" in any common definition for "premarital sex." Nor can you use the definition of "evil" to prove that premarital sex is by definition morally wrong.

-Bri

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:39 PM

From where did you get this definition for "prayer" RandFan? Please cite your source. The one for "superstition" appears to be from The Free Dictionary. Where is the definition of "prayer" from? It is prima facie. You said

In this discussion, I believe we've both used the phrase to mean "belief that prayer affects the outcome of events." I'm not sure how it can be any more clear.

Superstition is an irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Prayer is an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. I'll ask again, how is the first any different from the second?

The dictionary's purpose is to provide a definition, not to make judgments about what must fall under the definition. Yes, and by this definition it is clear that prayer is irrational.

For example, although a Christian may believe that premarital sex falls under the definition of "evil" (defined in the dictionary as "morally bad or wrong") you won't see the word "evil" or "morally wrong" in any common definition for "premarital sex." Nor can you use the definition of "evil" to prove that premarital sex is by definition morally wrong. But premarital sex IS premarital sex!

And prayer IS belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome and is therefore irrational.

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.

...

In keeping with the Latin etymology of the word, religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition. Likewise, Atheists, agnostics, and skeptics regard religious belief as superstition. (Edmund Burke, the Irish orator, once said, "Superstition is the religion of weak minds".) From the broadest perspective, all religion is a form of superstition.

Religious practices are most likely to be labelled "superstitious" by outsiders when they include belief in extraordinary events, supernatural interventions, apparitions or the efficacy of charms, incantations, the meaningfulness of omens, and prognostications.

Greek and Roman pagans, who modeled their relations with the gods on political and social terms scorned the man who constantly trembled with fear at the thought of the gods, as a slave feared a cruel and capricious master. "Such fear of the gods (deisidaimonia) was what the Romans meant by 'superstition' (Veyne 1987, p 211). For Christians just such fears might be worn proudly as a name: Desdemona.

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:49 PM

Robert Green Ingersoll (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.netscape:en-US&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=robert+ingersoll&spell=1)

WHAT IS SUPERSTITION?

To believe in spite of evidence or without evidence.

To account for one mystery by another.

To believe that the world is governed by chance or caprice.

To disregard the true relation between cause and effect.

To believe in force apart from substance, or in substance
apart from force.

To believe in miracles, spells and charms, in dreams and
prophecies.

To believe in the supernatural.

RandFan

7th August 2006, 07:56 PM

Merriam-Webster Online

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary. "Trust in magic..." "A false concpetion of causation".

RandFan

7th August 2006, 08:03 PM

Compact Oxford English Dictionary

superstition (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/superstition?view=uk)

Excessively credulous belief in the supernatural.
credulous
(http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/credulous?view=uk)
• adjective excessively ready to believe things; gullible. FWIW, "Excessively credulous", I think, is redundant.

RandFan

7th August 2006, 08:16 PM

The article you cited doesn't contain the word "irrational." No, it dispenses with such nicities.

However, there are at least two reasons for believing that beseeching an SB to intervene in the natural course of events is absurd.
:D So, which is worse, "irrational" or "absurd"?

I less than three logic

7th August 2006, 11:19 PM

I can agree with this, but keep in mind that you're suggesting that beliefs that others on this thread have already deemed "rational" are irrational. If you're willing to concede that all beliefs for which there is little or no evidence are irrational, then I'll agree to that, but it means that the only rational opinions on such matters are agnostic opinions (i.e. having no opinion at all). If, on the other hand, you think that having an opinion on such matters is not necessarily irrational, then it cannot be rational to hold one opinion but irrational to hold the opposite opinion when there is little or no evidence supporting either opinion.
I don’t agree that agonistic opinions are the only rational belief when there is no evidence on either side. I think the default position is that it doesn’t exist until there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The way I see it, there are an infinite number of things that do not exit, yet only a finite number that actually can. That does not mean the possibility does not exist however.

The size of the universe may provide evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, but it is very weak evidence at best that intelligent life actually exists elsewhere. There is simply no hard evidence of it. In that regard, a belief that intelligent life does exist elsewhere is quite similar to belief that God does exist. If one is necessarily irrational because it has little evidence to support it, then both must be (as must be the opposite opinions).
No, it is not similar at all. First, descriptions of God tend to contradict most of the known laws of physics; where as life on other planets would not. Also, given that life was created here, and lacking a belief in God, means that it must have occurred naturally. That means given similar conditions we could expect life to arise on other planets. Now, the conditions needed for life to be created might be exceedingly rare, but given the size of the universe, you could still expect it to happen a number of times. Perhaps it is very rare and only one life-capable planet is produced per 100 galaxies. That’s about 1 planet for every 20,000,000,000,000,000 – 40,000,000,000,000 stars, give or take a few. (Quick estimate based on an average galaxy being like the Milky Way that is estimated at 200 to 400 billion stars.) Current estimates place the number of galaxies in the universe just above 100 billion galaxies, so you could still expect millions of life-capable planets to form. To be quite honest, I think that to believe Earth is the only planet to have life requires a belief in God.

Bri

8th August 2006, 06:14 AM

It is prima facie.

Then I'm sorry, but you haven't proven that prayer is irrational by any definition that is generally used. The only definition you've posted to support your claim is one you made up. If I make up a definition of "premarital sex" such as "the morally wrong act of having sex before marriage" then I can also prove that premarital sex is evil by that definition, but that would be using a definition that isn't generally used.

But premarital sex IS premarital sex!

And prayer IS belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome and is therefore irrational.

And prayer IS prayer. But "prayer" isn't generally defined as "an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome" any more than "premarital sex" is generally defined as "the morally wrong act of having sex before marriage." You can prove me wrong by finding a commonly-accepted dictionary that matches your definition. Sorry, but wishful thinking doesn't make it so.

-Bri

elliotfc

8th August 2006, 06:17 AM

Taken somewhat further, the upshot seems to be that, at some stage in the future (à la de Chardin's "Omega Point"), we shall no longer have any need for or of god, though I doubt you would willingly subscribe to such a notion. Am I wrong?

Whether or not *we* have a need for god is irrelevant. Need is a personal thing. You may be, on a personal level, correct. Nobody NEEDS God. But that is independent of personal choice.

If you want to live for eternity, without God, you will be allowed to do so. People who choose to need God are allowed to have that personal need as well.

Now, the question is...for those people who say that they need God, why do they need God? The reasons that I need God are probably irrelevant or ludicrous to you, so I could hardly expect you to need God as I do.

The kicker is in the meaning that attaches to "so what?" If, as I suspect, it connotes indifference...

It does not connote indifference. Rather, it means that I have no reason to dogmatically damn or exclude an anecdote just because it doesn't fit in a working model of reality. Will I consider that? Of course. Will it predetermine a personal conclusion? No.

...then physical reality surely can no longer offer up any surprises to you.

Depends what you mean by surprise I guess. I can be relatively surprised, but not essentially surprised.

On the other hand, as an earnest question, it would (and should!) prompt much curiosity about why the anecdote in question violates our model, and thereby lead to improved understanding.

I don't fundamentally consider models to be either equal or superior to events. Sure, they are useful. Are they inviolable? I guess that's a matter of personal opinion, you can figger where I stand.

I, of course, have my own working models, and they do serve as decent filters for me. Nobody has time to consider every anecdote under the sun. I'm more charitable to anecdotes that happen in abudance, as opposed to anecdotes that appear to be singular. I'm not saying I accept all anecdotes either, I just don't dogmatically dismiss them, a priori, because they don't fit whatever the common working models are.

Yet it seems that you are loath to apply a similar utilitarian conception to god, i.e. viewing god as a working model of the total reality. Why is this?

Because I think that God is more like a person than a construct, I guess? It follows from my religion.

I think I understand what you're saying, but I don't accept it. I get that others are intellectually satisfied by understanding god in such a way.

-Elliot

elliotfc

8th August 2006, 06:25 AM

What constitutes the prayer? The thoughts, words, or behaviors? And over what time-frame should those be considered to be prayer?

To me prayer is all about putting God in the center of the universe, and not yourself. You can have the same words "God, please cure my cancer", but it can have at least a few different perspectives. I think that for some Christians such prayers *always* have the understanding that it be fulfilled if it's God's will. Meaning that would *go* without saying, that is the thought behind the prayer. Others may see it as a request with ramifications. If the cancer is not cured, then God doesn't care or God doesn't exist or God hates me. This perspective places the individual at the center, and would have God either respect that, or be uncaring/unloving/non-existant.

As for time-frame, this also follows. Are we on God's time, or is God on our time? If we expect healing when we want it, we are having God submit to our plan, and not the other way around.

We will all suffer. We will all die. These will happen *before* we are perfectly healed. So yes, I think keeping in perspective is the key. Would we settle for imperfect and temporary healings above total healing?

If a person who is praying would prefer a granted specific prayer (heal my leukemia) over an eternal life with God, or, would make the specific prayer greater than eternal life with God, the perspective is out of whack. From a Christian point of view.

-Elliot

elliotfc

8th August 2006, 06:34 AM

But one must also ask the question, "What kind of reason do they have to believe that God exists or grants prayers?" Can it be any reason whatsoever?

On a personal level, yes.

If so, then nothing in the world is irrational (including the raping of virgins to cure AIDS.) If not, what separates the "good" reasons from the "bad" reasons?

About this one. Is the belief that *God* will cure you of AIDS if you rape a virgin, or is it that the virgin will take the AIDS from you completely, or is it something else?

I'll be happy to judge this particular thing as rational, or irrational, but I'd like to understand the thinking behind it first.

On the surface I'll call it irrational. What men have claimed to have had their AIDS cured by raping a virgin? One man? Ten men? What are their names? And then...was their AIDS actually cured? (and are we differentiating HIV from AIDS?)

With prayer, millions of people have claimed to have their prayers answered. So I dunno how much legs this comparison has.

Do you believe there can be invalid reasons to believe a thing?

I think so, but I also think that a person can override that. Let's say a friend of mine is staring at a bag of microwave popcorn which is sitting on the floor. He says if he stares at it hard enough it will start to pop. I'd spend maybe a couple minutes trying to persuade him that it's foolish to believe that, because who has ever heard of a case where someone staring at a bag of microwave pocorn sitting on the floor actually made it pop? And if he were to tell me that he is had a dream where he actually did it, at least that would be a valid reason, personal to himself. Is it valid to me? No. To the majority? No. To "science"? No. Is it valid to him? Apparently.

-Elliot

elliotfc

8th August 2006, 06:37 AM

The raping virgins thing is a straw man. The belief that raping a virgin can sometimes cure AIDS would not justify the act even if it were true.

What do we mean by "cure AIDS"? Send an HIV related disease into remission? Eliminate HIV completely? Point of order please!

-Elliot

Bri

8th August 2006, 06:43 AM

I don’t agree that agonistic opinions are the only rational belief when there is no evidence on either side. I think the default position is that it doesn’t exist until there is evidence to suggest otherwise. The way I see it, there are an infinite number of things that do not exit, yet only a finite number that actually can. That does not mean the possibility does not exist however.

Then unfortunately, the belief that intelligent life doesn't exist outside of our solar system would have to be the "default" position. I would agree with you, except that whatever criteria you come up with has to be consistent.

No, it is not similar at all.

Everything you presented is evidence of the possibility of intelligent life outside of our solar system. Unfortunately, there isn't any real evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system. In that regard, the "default" position would have to be the same for both according to that criteria. If you insist that the opinion that isn't the "default" opinion is necessarily irrational in cases where there is little solid evidence either way, you should be consistent about the application of that rule.

To be quite honest, I think that to believe Earth is the only planet to have life requires a belief in God.

My guess is that those on this thread who insist the belief rational despite the insistence that the default position must be for non-existence are doing so based on that assumption (which is unfortunately not a very objective means of determining the rationality of a belief). That said, I can think of other reasons to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere (the belief doesn't require a belief in God). The conditions that lead to consciousness are poorly understood, so it seems quite reasonable to be of the opinion that the conditions required for intelligent life are quite specific. If so, the chances of those exact conditions occurring might be extremely slim, in which case it is unlikely that any other planet would produce intelligent life other than one that is just like ours. Is such an opinion necessarily irrational?

-Bri

elliotfc

8th August 2006, 06:48 AM

I less than three logic

8th August 2006, 06:55 AM

But God *is* extrasolar intelligence.

-Elliot
Perhaps, but I meant life on a planet outside our solar system. Try to read things in context of the discussion.

elliotfc

8th August 2006, 07:02 AM

This is sort of the position that RandFan took when he said the "Deist God" was rational. The position is that as long as you put no restrictions whatsoever on the characteristics of God, then believing in God is essentially the same thing as believing in nature. But if that is the case, why add in God at all? Is there a rational reason to rename "nature" to God?

This falls apart when you understand that Christians *do* put restrictions on the characteristics of God.

However, as soon as you start giving God traits, like "He listens to prayers", then such a belief is irrational in the absence of evidence for such listening.

Right. We simply have faith that God listens to our prayers, and this faith is based on the teachings of Christ (among others). It is also verified by personal experience however, which matters to a hell of a lot of people. It's verified in manifold ways, and not in the particular ways as would be needed to win a million dollar challenge.

Is it irrational based on your working models? I happily concede that it is. I don't care whether or not you think it is rational then, I guess that's all I can say. If I'm right, you could *still* be right. All of this would still be irrational, based on your working models. And if those models work for you, that's nice! :) They don't have to work for everyone, and God's ways do not have to be subject to them.

Sure, you could say "He listens but doesn't do anything", but once again, you are reducing God to something exactly resmbles no-god.

Not many Christians would say such a thing. Does God do everything exactly as we tell him to do it? Of course not. Would that make him a no-god? Of course not.

If you say "God is good", well we know what "good" normally means, so that claim requires evidence.

We exist, and that's the best evidence.

If you counter with "we don't know what 'good' means to God," then our buddy Occam slices Him out of the equation again.

I don't care much for Occam's razor, because reality is really really really complicated, the more you know about it. So I'll ignore that.

As for we don't know what good means to God, the Christian says this is not true, we have the person of Christ.

If you can't tell whether or not your God is doing "good", then there is no difference between that concept of God and no-god.

Life is more about what *we* do, than what God does. It is elementary Christian theology that Satan is allowed to reign on earth, that our sin makes us a sort of adversary to God. Yes we have problems telling what God is or isn't doing. We have severed ourselves from him.

No, I don't expect you to accept any of the above. I just want you to get a better handle of your understanding of Christian theology.

And I agree, talking to aliens is less rational than believing they might exist.

Isn't God an alien, sort of?

-Elliot

elliotfc

8th August 2006, 07:10 AM

Perhaps, but I meant life on a planet outside our solar system. Try to read things in context of the discussion.

My point stands, thanks for the clarification.

We know that many people (myself included) believe that talking to God can have measureable effects on our personal lives, but we also keep that in perspective. We don't believe that if we pray to God to turn all of our rugs into molten lava, he will do just that.

I agree that you feel that talking to God is commensurate to talking to aliens, and to you both things are equally irrational. I accept that. Others disagree, and I think you accept that. We disagree, but we accept these things. The alternative is to fight about it, or pass legislation or protest each other's homes. Or eat ice cream.

-Elliot

RandFan

8th August 2006, 07:21 AM

Then I'm sorry, but you haven't proven that prayer is irrational by any definition that is generally used. Yes I have.

1.) It is a belief.
2.) It is a belief that an action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome

And prayer IS prayer. But "prayer" isn't generally defined as "an irrational belief that an action not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome"... It fits the definition.

...any more than "premarital sex" is generally defined as "the morally wrong act of having sex before marriage." You are making the fatal error of believing the definition includes an opinion about superstition. The "irrational belief" isn't simply a judgment on the part of the writers of the dictionary. The writers are telling us WHY it is an irrational belief which only makes sense.

1.) Superstition is a belief. That doesn't tell us much.
2.) Superstition is an irrational belief. Again, this doesn't tell us much. Why does the writer consider the belief "irrational"?

Bri

8th August 2006, 07:21 AM

Don't forget the "based on faith" part, Bri. When you leave out little things like that, you change the topic.

I have no idea what you're talking about in this post, but your insistence in discussing actions rather than beliefs is off-topic. ANY belief can be used to justify ANY action. The action is not evidence of the rationality of the belief. Any insistence in discussion of actions in order to provide evidence of the rationality or irrationality of a belief used to justify the action is a fallacy, and can be used to provide similar "evidence" (both for and against) any belief.

Very weak. And yet, with all the praying that goes on and all the things it could affect that would be very easy to see, the weakness of the evidence is damning.

I will address this point directly, since it is on-topic. Indeed, if the belief were that there should be evidence in favor of the effects of prayer, it would be an irrational belief.

However, it is my understanding that Christians ofter believe that God might not want to provide irrefutable evidence of his existence and grants prayer only for the purpose of affecting the outcome prayed for, and/or that prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief.

-Bri

Genesius

8th August 2006, 07:24 AM

We know that many people (myself included) believe that talking to God can have measureable effects on our personal lives, but we also keep that in perspective. We don't believe that if we pray to God to turn all of our rugs into molten lava, he will do just that.

Just curious. . .

There are many people who believe that prayer to Yahweh, Allah, Zoroaster or Krishna can have measurable effects on their personal lives. How do you reconcile that with your personal belief in God?

Are you a panthiest, saying that they're all worshiping the same God by different names, thus denying Jesus' claim that He is the only way to the Father?

Do you believe that only your prayers (and the prayers of your co-religionists) are effective and that members of other faiths are deluding themselves?

Do you consider the possibility that the benefits of prayer can be attributed to the placebo effect, and therefore none of the above-mentioned prayers have any meaning in a spiritual sense?

RandFan

8th August 2006, 07:27 AM

I think that for some Christians such prayers *always* have the understanding that it be fulfilled if it's God's will. What's the point of asking? How is asking God to cure cancer different from asking the wall?

RandFan

8th August 2006, 07:31 AM

I have no idea what you're talking about in this post, but your insistence in discussing actions rather than beliefs is off-topic. ANY belief can be used to justify ANY action. The action is not evidence of the rationality of the belief. Any insistence in discussion of actions in order to provide evidence of the rationality or irrationality of a belief used to justify the action is a fallacy, and can be used to provide similar "evidence" (both for and against) any belief. Forget the action, is the belief rational?

However, it is my understanding that Christians ofter believe that ... prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief. Then it is never in the best interest of people who don't have limbs for those limbs to grow back?

It is never in the best interest of a severely retarded child to be healed?

Bri

8th August 2006, 07:33 AM

Yes I have.

1.) It is a belief.
2.) It is a belief that an action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome

Heh. By "generally used" I meant "generally used by others" not "made up by you." Please use an actual dictionary definition if your intent is to prove that prayer is irrational by definition.

You are making the fatal error of believing the definition includes an opinion about superstition. The "irrational belief" isn't simply a judgment on the part of the writers of the dictionary. The writers are telling us WHY it is an irrational belief which only makes sense.

I'm sorry, but you are making the error of apparently believing that the definition includes opinion about superstition (namely, that prayer is superstition). The dictionary makes no such opinion (nor does it provide the opinion that premarital sex is evil).

1.) Superstition is a belief. That doesn't tell us much.
2.) Superstition is an irrational belief. Again, this doesn't tell us much. Why does the writer consider the belief "irrational"?

The writer of the definition considers any belief to be a superstition if it is irrational and concerns an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events that influences its outcome. The dictionary definition doesn't specify that belief in prayer is either irrational or isn't logically related to a course of events believed to be influenced by the prayer. Likewise, the dictionary doesn't specify that "premarital sex" is morally wrong. You cannot use the dictionary to prove that prayer is a superstition by definition, nor can you use it to prove that premarital sex is evil by definition.

-Bri

Bri

8th August 2006, 07:37 AM

Then it is never in the best interest of people who don't have limbs for those limbs to grow back?

It is never in the best interest of a severely retarded child to be healed?

How would I know what might be in a person's best interest unless I'm omniscient?

BTW, you cut out the most important part of my sentence when you quoted me. The full sentence was:

However, it is my understanding that Christians ofter believe that God might not want to provide irrefutable evidence of his existence and grants prayer only for the purpose of affecting the outcome prayed for, and/or that prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief.

-Bri

RandFan

8th August 2006, 07:38 AM

Heh. By "generally used" I meant "generally used by others" not "made up by you." Please use an actual dictionary definition if your intent is to prove that prayer is irrational by definition. I have. The description of prayer fits the definition.

I'm sorry, but you are making the error of apparently believing that the definition includes opinion about superstition (namely, that prayer is superstition). The dictionary makes no such opinion (nor does it provide the opinion that premarital sex is evil). No, that is not correct. The dictionary does not speak to ANY specific belief. Only those that believe that an action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

By your logic NOTHING is superstition. I'll show you, name a superstition?

The writer of the definition considers any belief to be a superstition if it is irrational... And how the hell do we determine IF IT IS IRRATIONAL?

...and concerns... It does not say "and concerns" it says "that is". An irrational belief "that is"

Rabbit: a mammal that is warm-blooded with hair that breathes air, has internal fertilization and nurses its live-borne young.

What follows "that is" explains why the Rabbit is a mammal.

RandFan

8th August 2006, 07:39 AM

How would I know what might be in a person's best interest unless I'm omniscient?Evasion noted, by your logic "or that prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief." we can infer that it is never in the person's best interest.

BTW, including the other sentence doesn't change anything.

However, it is my understanding that Christians ofter believe that God might not want to provide irrefutable evidence of his existence and grants prayer only for the purpose of affecting the outcome prayed for, and/or that prayers are granted only when the outcome is in the best interests of the person being prayed for, then there is little evidence for or against such belief.

We still must conclude that it is never in the best interest of a person who does not have limbs for them to grow back. And BTW, lizards can grow their tails back so it is not theoretically impossible for humans to do so. We simply lack the genetic code. God could cure some and not others there by NOT providing irrefutable evidence.

All we know is that there is a category of prayer that God for some reason or another never seems to answer.

I less than three logic

8th August 2006, 07:59 AM

Then unfortunately, the belief that intelligent life doesn't exist outside of our solar system would have to be the "default" position. I would agree with you, except that whatever criteria you come up with has to be consistent.

Everything you presented is evidence of the possibility of intelligent life outside of our solar system. Unfortunately, there isn't any real evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of our solar system. In that regard, the "default" position would have to be the same for both according to that criteria. If you insist that the opinion that isn't the "default" opinion is necessarily irrational in cases where there is little solid evidence either way, you should be consistent about the application of that rule.

My guess is that those on this thread who insist the belief rational despite the insistence that the default position must be for non-existence are doing so based on that assumption (which is unfortunately not a very objective means of determining the rationality of a belief). That said, I can think of other reasons to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere (the belief doesn't require a belief in God). The conditions that lead to consciousness are poorly understood, so it seems quite reasonable to be of the opinion that the conditions required for intelligent life are quite specific. If so, the chances of those exact conditions occurring might be extremely slim, in which case it is unlikely that any other planet would produce intelligent life other than one that is just like ours. Is such an opinion necessarily irrational?

-Bri
You still seem to be completely disregarding the fact that life exists here on Earth. We are not separate from the rest of the universe, so unless you believe life was created through a supernatural event, life on Earth is evidence for life in the universe. The stuff that makes up our solar system is abundant throughout the universe, and there is no reason to conclude that the events that happened within this solar system could not happen elsewhere.

I think it is completely rational to believe that it requires quite specific conditions for intelligent life to emerge. However, if all of it happens due to natural course of events, we're simply left with a numbers game. The probability that conditions on Earth being unique in a universe this size is unimaginably small, but not impossible. We may, in fact, be alone, but I'm willing to bet with the numbers on my side.

Bri

8th August 2006, 08:00 AM

I have. The description of prayer fits the definition.

It is clearly your opinion that prayer fits the definition of "superstition," just as it is clearly the opinion of some Christians that premarital sex fits the definition of "evil."

No, that is not correct. The dictionary does not speak to ANY specific belief. Only those that believe that an action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

Exactly. And the fact that you think that prayer is superstition is your opinion. The fact that some Christians think that premarital sex is evil is their opinion. Neither are provable by definition or otherwise.

By your logic NOTHING is superstition. I'll show you, name a superstition?

Again, I didn't say that nothing is superstition, only that belief in prayer cannot be proven to be superstition. In other words, that you think belief in prayer to be superstition is opinion, not fact.

And how the hell do we determine IF IT IS IRRATIONAL?

It's my position that you can't prove that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational, at least not by any criteria that would also prove that other beliefs you hold to be rational are irrational.

-Bri

RandFan

8th August 2006, 08:01 AM

I less than three logic

8th August 2006, 08:13 AM

My point stands, thanks for the clarification.

We know that many people (myself included) believe that talking to God can have measureable effects on our personal lives, but we also keep that in perspective. We don't believe that if we pray to God to turn all of our rugs into molten lava, he will do just that.

I agree that you feel that talking to God is commensurate to talking to aliens, and to you both things are equally irrational. I accept that. Others disagree, and I think you accept that. We disagree, but we accept these things. The alternative is to fight about it, or pass legislation or protest each other's homes. Or eat ice cream.

-Elliot
Yes, I agree with this, and I vote for the ice cream. :D

RandFan

8th August 2006, 08:19 AM

Again, I didn't say that nothing is superstition, only that belief in prayer cannot be proven to be superstition. In other words, that you think belief in prayer to be superstition is opinion, not fact.

ONE MORE TIME, NAME A SUPERSTITION? {SHEESH} Bri,

By your logic the definition of superstition has no meaning. It is impossible to come to any reasonable determination if anything is superstition because it must meet two tests and one of them is undefined and by your logic only those things specifically defined as superstitions are superstitions.

By my understanding the Dictionary clearly tells us how to determine if something is irrational, and therefore superstitious.

Which understanding of the defintion makes the most sense. Your understanding makes no sense which is why you refuse to name a superstition because I can show that using your logic nothing is supertitious.

Bri

8th August 2006, 08:22 AM

You still seem to be completely disregarding the fact that life exists here on Earth.

No, not at all. The fact that life exists here on Earth is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life in the universe. It is NOT evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. It IS evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In other words, the fact that something exists in one location is evidence of the possibility that it might exist elsewhere, but not evidence that it actually exists elsewhere.

I think it is completely rational to believe that it requires quite specific conditions for intelligent life to emerge. However, if all of it happens due to natural course of events, we're simply left with a numbers game. The probability that conditions on Earth being unique in a universe this size is unimaginably small, but not impossible. We may, in fact, be alone, but I'm willing to bet with the numbers on my side.

OK, we know that the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe ranges anywhere from very, very low (close to 0%) but greater than 0% (i.e. not impossible) to very high (close to 100%) but less than 100% (i.e. certain). If one uses reason to arrive at the opinion that conditions must be very close to those here on Earth for intelligent life to emerge -- that there is an extremely low chance of the precise conditions on Earth to exist elsewhere -- is it necessarily irrational to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere in the universe (the default position, according to your previous post)?

-Bri

I less than three logic

8th August 2006, 08:53 AM

No, not at all. The fact that life exists here on Earth is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life in the universe. It is NOT evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. It IS evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In other words, the fact that something exists in one location is evidence of the possibility that it might exist elsewhere, but not evidence that it actually exists elsewhere.
Great, now show me irrefutable evidence supporting the possibility of God, it has no evidence from my point of view, and it is only possible because it is based on claims which are not falsifiable. Once we progress by this point we can get into the numbers game.

OK, we know that the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe ranges anywhere from very, very low (close to 0%) but greater than 0% (i.e. not impossible) to very high (close to 100%) but less than 100% (i.e. certain).
Which is still above the probability range of God existing, without irrefutable evidence to the contrary, like life here on Earth, the probability of God existing can still fall into the 0% category, where the probability of life can’t.

If one uses reason to arrive at the opinion that conditions must be very close to those here on Earth for intelligent life to emerge -- that there is an extremely low chance of the precise conditions on Earth to exist elsewhere -- is it necessarily irrational to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere in the universe (the default position, according to your previous post)?

-Bri
No, I wouldn't say it is irrational to believe intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere. I simply think it is improbable given the sheer size of the universe.

Bri

8th August 2006, 11:58 AM

Bri,

By your logic the definition of superstition has no meaning. It is impossible to come to any reasonable determination if anything is superstition because it must meet two tests and one of them is undefined and by your logic only those things specifically defined as superstitions are superstitions.

That prayer is not specifically defined as superstition in the dictionary doesn't mean that the word has no meaning. It must meet three tests, actually (it must be irrational, it must be a belief, and it must be that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome). Like the word "evil" what fits into the category (i.e. that meets all of the criteria) is a matter of opinion.

By my understanding the Dictionary clearly tells us how to determine if something is irrational, and therefore superstitious.

Do you also understand the dictionary to clearly tell us how to determine if something is morally wrong, and therefore evil?

Which understanding of the defintion makes the most sense. Your understanding makes no sense which is why you refuse to name a superstition because I can show that using your logic nothing is supertitious.

My understanding is the only one that makes any sense at all, unless you also believe that what fits other terms such as "evil" are also determined by the dictionary. Since my point was that the dictionary doesn't determine what does and does not fit the definition of "superstition," your argument would only support my point.

-Bri

Tricky

8th August 2006, 02:15 PM

This falls apart when you understand that Christians *do* put restrictions on the characteristics of God.Indeed it does. My point was that while Deist concepts of God are arguably less irrational, once you start giving characteristics to the God (which cannot be supported by evidence) then the concept becomes more irrational.

Right. We simply have faith that God listens to our prayers, and this faith is based on the teachings of Christ (among others). It is also verified by personal experience however, which matters to a hell of a lot of people. It's verified in manifold ways, and not in the particular ways as would be needed to win a million dollar challenge.
Yes, they have faith and their faith is "verified" by more faith.

Is it irrational based on your working models? I happily concede that it is. I don't care whether or not you think it is rational then, I guess that's all I can say. If I'm right, you could *still* be right. All of this would still be irrational, based on your working models. And if those models work for you, that's nice! :) They don't have to work for everyone, and God's ways do not have to be subject to them.
I'm fine with that. All I am saying is that belief in God is irrational. I'm not saying it is necessarily bad. It depends on what the person does that makes their belief good or bad within a moral system. As I've said, we all have some rational beliefs and some irrational beliefs. I don't consider holding an irrational belief to be a desirable thing, but rationality is not a requirement for me to like or love someone. My beloved wife is a Pagan.

Not many Christians would say such a thing. Does God do everything exactly as we tell him to do it? Of course not. Would that make him a no-god? Of course not.Does your God do anything you ask him to do? I would say that other than by faith, you can not show this to be the case. Does His total indistinguishability (other than by faith) from plain old nature, randomness and human effort mean He is "no-god"? It certainly supports it.

We exist, and that's the best evidence.Of God? Which one? Can you show that existance is less likely without God? (Again, apart from by faith.) Is the existence of lightning evidence of Zeus?

I don't care much for Occam's razor, because reality is really really really complicated, the more you know about it. So I'll ignore that.
It is true that Occam's razor is but a guideline for finding the most likely answer when there is limited knowledge. But to make a case for venturing away from it, you need to show good reason why more complex is more likely than less complex. This is why Rube Goldberg machines are not widely used.

As for we don't know what good means to God, the Christian says this is not true, we have the person of Christ.You also have the behavior of God, which is often not good by any moral standards I've ever seen. And even Christ was known to be petulant from time time.

Life is more about what *we* do, than what God does. It is elementary Christian theology that Satan is allowed to reign on earth, that our sin makes us a sort of adversary to God. Yes we have problems telling what God is or isn't doing. We have severed ourselves from him.
Then by your own admission, God is not "good". You'd have to completely throw out the meaning of the word. Of course, your conception of God need not include that description. Most Christians include it every time they say "Grace".

No, I don't expect you to accept any of the above. I just want you to get a better handle of your understanding of Christian theology. Honestly Elliot, you haven't told me anything new. I understand a good bit about Christian theology, perhaps more than many Christians. I simply do not find it rational or nourishing.

Isn't God an alien, sort of? Probably not. Almost every description of aliens I've ever seen includes at the minimum that they are organisms, capable of being killed.

Bri

8th August 2006, 05:39 PM

Great, now show me irrefutable evidence supporting the possibility of God, it has no evidence from my point of view, and it is only possible because it is based on claims which are not falsifiable. Once we progress by this point we can get into the numbers game.

The evidence presented (the existence of human beings on earth) is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life in the universe. It is certainly not irrefutable evidence of intelligent life outside of the solar system (nor even irrefutable evidence of its possibility).

Without a doubt, it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere, because it isn't impossible. Without a doubt, it is also possible that God exists because God's existence is not impossible. Clearly, the probability of both must be placed at greater than 0% because 0% means that it is impossible. However, any actual evidence of either one is lacking.

No, I wouldn't say it is irrational to believe intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere. I simply think it is improbable given the sheer size of the universe.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that it is not necessarily irrational to hold either opinion concerning intelligent life elsewhere (to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere, or to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere). To my mind, this is plausible given the fact that there isn't strong evidence to support either opinion and either opinion is possible (even though clearly both opinions cannot be right). However, the same would seem to hold for belief in God and all sorts of other beliefs for which there isn't strong evidence to support either opinion.

-Bri

RandFan

8th August 2006, 07:12 PM

That prayer is not specifically defined as superstition in the dictionary doesn't mean that the word has no meaning. It must meet three tests, actually (it must be irrational, it must be a belief, and it must be that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome). If this were true, it isn't, and if we follow your logic, there are no such things as superstitions. In any event you are wrong. And btw, "belief and "a belief in" is redundant. A car and a green car is still a car. A ford doesn't have to pass two tests to be a car.

Rabbit: A mammal that is warm-blooded with hair that breathes air, has internal fertilization and nurses its live-borne young. "That is" defines what is mammal.

By your logic a Rabbit must pass about 20 tests. A rabbit must be a mammal. A rabbit must be warm-blooded. A rabbit must be a mammal that is warm-blooded. A rabbit must have hair. A rabbit must be a mammal with hair. A rabbit must be a warm-blooded mammal with hair, etc., etc, tautological.

Do you also understand the dictionary to clearly tell us how to determine if something is morally wrong, and therefore evil? The dictionary makes it clear that morals are relative to community standards. No such distinction is made for superstition or irrationality. You are really reaching for straws.

RandFan

8th August 2006, 07:15 PM

My understanding is the only one that makes any sense at all...You are belied by your silence. Name a superstition?

RandFan

8th August 2006, 07:55 PM

Bri,

I posted definitions from Oxford English and Websters dictionary, you then said:

Then I'm sorry, but you haven't proven that prayer is irrational by any definition that is generally used. That's a bit disingenuous or ignorant. Please do some background on the two.

Merriam-Webster Online

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

superstition (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/superstition?view=uk)

Excessively credulous belief in the supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.

...

In keeping with the Latin etymology of the word, religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition. Likewise, Atheists, agnostics, and skeptics regard religious belief as superstition. (Edmund Burke, the Irish orator, once said, "Superstition is the religion of weak minds".) From the broadest perspective, all religion is a form of superstition.

Religious practices are most likely to be labelled "superstitious" by outsiders when they include belief in extraordinary events, supernatural interventions, apparitions or the efficacy of charms, incantations, the meaningfulness of omens, and prognostications.

Greek and Roman pagans, who modeled their relations with the gods on political and social terms scorned the man who constantly trembled with fear at the thought of the gods, as a slave feared a cruel and capricious master. "Such fear of the gods (deisidaimonia) was what the Romans meant by 'superstition' (Veyne 1987, p 211). For Christians just such fears might be worn proudly as a name: Desdemona.

Robert Green Ingersoll (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.netscape:en-US&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=robert+ingersoll&spell=1)

WHAT IS SUPERSTITION?

To believe in spite of evidence or without evidence.

To account for one mystery by another.

To believe that the world is governed by chance or caprice.

To disregard the true relation between cause and effect.

To believe in force apart from substance, or in substance
apart from force.

To believe in miracles, spells and charms, in dreams and
prophecies.

To believe in the supernatural.

I less than three logic

8th August 2006, 08:33 PM

The evidence presented (the existence of human beings on earth) is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life in the universe. It is certainly not irrefutable evidence of intelligent life outside of the solar system (nor even irrefutable evidence of its possibility).

Without a doubt, it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere, because it isn't impossible. Without a doubt, it is also possible that God exists because God's existence is not impossible. Clearly, the probability of both must be placed at greater than 0% because 0% means that it is impossible. However, any actual evidence of either one is lacking.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that it is not necessarily irrational to hold either opinion concerning intelligent life elsewhere (to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere, or to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere). To my mind, this is plausible given the fact that there isn't strong evidence to support either opinion and either opinion is possible (even though clearly both opinions cannot be right). However, the same would seem to hold for belief in God and all sorts of other beliefs for which there isn't strong evidence to support either opinion.

-Bri

This seems to be going nowhere. You continue to see the Earth and the rest of the universe as us and them, two separate things that appear to share nothing in common. This is, of course, mistaken. You said so yourself in your last post “It IS evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.” Unless life was created by a supernatural event this statement is true. There is no logical reason to conclude that if it happened once (which we have irrefutable evidence for) that it is impossible for it to happen again.

Now I simply ask for similar evidence to support the possibility of God existing. Unless you are able to provide some, I can’t see how your analogy can hold together. It becomes the difference of believing in something that is possible and has some evidence verse believing in something that is possible and has no evidence.

Bri

9th August 2006, 06:11 AM

This seems to be going nowhere. You continue to see the Earth and the rest of the universe as us and them, two separate things that appear to share nothing in common. This is, of course, mistaken.

True, it seems to be going nowhere, but not because I see Earth as separate from the rest of the universe (I don't). What I said is that one can logically come to the conclusion that the precise combination of conditions necessary for intelligent life to emerge are likely unique to Earth.

You said so yourself in your last post “It IS evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.”

Yes, it IS evidence (far from irrefutable evidence, however) of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Unfortunately, the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe was never in question, because anything is possible unless proven impossible. There is little if any evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of the solar system.

Unless life was created by a supernatural event this statement is true. There is no logical reason to conclude that if it happened once (which we have irrefutable evidence for) that it is impossible for it to happen again.

As I explained above, supernatural events are not necessary in order to conclude it improbable that intelligent life exists outside of Earth.

Now I simply ask for similar evidence to support the possibility of God existing. Unless you are able to provide some, I can’t see how your analogy can hold together. It becomes the difference of believing in something that is possible and has some evidence verse believing in something that is possible and has no evidence.

Again, the only evidence needed to support the possibility of anything is the fact that it cannot be proven to be impossible. It would be as irrational to conclude that it is impossible that God exists as it would be to conclude that it is impossible for intelligent life to exist elsewhere. Something cannot be "more possible" than something else (it's either possible or it's impossible). The possibility of either isn't really in question and has already been discussed on this thread.

-Bri

Bri

9th August 2006, 06:32 AM

RandFan, I have tried to understand your last few posts, but cannot make heads or tails of them.

If this were true, it isn't, and if we follow your logic, there are no such things as superstitions. In any event you are wrong. And btw, "belief and "a belief in" is redundant. A car and a green car is still a car. A ford doesn't have to pass two tests to be a car.

Rabbit: A mammal that is warm-blooded with hair that breathes air, has internal fertilization and nurses its live-borne young. "That is" defines what is mammal.

By your logic a Rabbit must pass about 20 tests. A rabbit must be a mammal. A rabbit must be warm-blooded. A rabbit must be a mammal that is warm-blooded. A rabbit must have hair. A rabbit must be a mammal with hair. A rabbit must be a warm-blooded mammal with hair, etc., etc, tautological.

It seems that you're arguing about how many "tests" there are in a dictionary definition of "superstition" by making up a definition of "rabbit" that doesn't appear in any dictionary. The number of tests is irrelevant to the conversation, and I have already agreed to the premise that was relevant to the discussion regardless of whether you can prove the premise based on the definition (you can't). I'll concede that there are only two "tests" for superstition in the definition you posted rather than three if that will help you somehow.

The dictionary makes it clear that morals are relative to community standards. No such distinction is made for superstition or irrationality. You are really reaching for straws.

The dictionary makes it no more clear that morals are relative to community standards than it makes clear which beliefs the community considers superstition.

I suggest that we wrap up the dictionary discussion, because it is clear that it can go nowhere. Even if you were to somehow prove that the dictionary definition of "superstition" indicates that belief in prayer is a superstition (it doesn't), that would only serve to indicate that Christians use a different definition of "prayer." It seems obvious that to show that the Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational, you would have to use a definition of "prayer" that Christians use.

-Bri

RandFan

9th August 2006, 08:20 AM

RandFan, I have tried to understand your last few posts, but cannot make heads or tails of them. Then I would have to say that you are being obtuse.

It seems that you're arguing about how many "tests" there are in a dictionary definition of "superstition"... I'm illustrating the silliness of your argument.

...by making up a definition of "rabbit" that doesn't appear in any dictionary. I never said that it was a definition. Remember your Frog green animal that hops, it's the same vain. I'm using a logically valid statement to demonstrate that your conclusion is wrong.

RandFan

Rabbit: A mammal that is warm-blooded with hair that breathes air, has internal fertilization and nurses its live-borne young. That is a logically valid statement. Yet according to your logic, what follows "that is" does not define mammal. This is precisely the problem you have assuming that the dictionary is simply listing what is superstitious rather than demonstrating why it is an irrational belief.

The number of tests is irrelevant to the conversation...You are the one that wanted to point out that there were three tests. There aren't.

...and I have already agreed to the premise that was relevant to the discussion...If you don't like my answers stop asking questions. If you don't want to discuss the dictionary definition then stop talking about it.

...regardless of whether you can prove the premise based on the definition (you can't). What premise, do you mean proposition? I know that they can be interchangeable but you are not clear here.

I'll concede that there are only two "tests" for superstition in the definition you posted rather than three if that will help you somehow. You mean you would rather be patronizing than honest. There are at best two tests. There aren't actually but at best there could only be two. You could have simply acknowledged that fact but I guess you needed to be evasive.

The dictionary makes it no more clear that morals are relative to community standards than it makes clear which beliefs the community considers superstition. Superstitions are not a matter of community considerations. That's silly. Believing that horse shoes can bring good luck is superstitious by definition regardless of community standards.

I suggest that we wrap up the dictionary discussion, because it is clear that it can go nowhere. Even if you were to somehow prove that the dictionary definition of "superstition" indicates that belief in prayer is a superstition (it doesn't), that would only serve to indicate that Christians use a different definition of "prayer."This makes zero sense. It is demonstrable that you are wrong. And we have agreed on the definition of prayer that we are talking about. You have said that prayer in our context is one that influences events. That is precisely the dictionary definition.

It seems obvious that to show that the Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational, you would have to use a definition of "prayer" that Christians use. That really is easy. There are lots of definitions from lots of dictionaries.

Take the Oxford English dictionary. Oxford is world renown BTW. You might not know that but it is generally regarded as the most comprehensive, accurate, and scholarly dictionary of the English language.

superstition (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/superstition?view=uk)

Excessively credulous belief in the supernatural. Then there is Merriam-Webster, I'm certain that you have heard of them.

Merriam-Webster (http://forums.randi.org/Merriam-Webster Online)

Superstition

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary. Now, if you honestly read those definitions and continue to maintain that there is no basis to say that prayer is by definition superstitious then you are just being intellectually dishonest.

I less than three logic

9th August 2006, 08:29 AM

True, it seems to be going nowhere, but not because I see Earth as separate from the rest of the universe (I don't).
You're correct again. It is going nowhere because you continue to cling to this false analogy.

What I said is that one can logically come to the conclusion that the precise combination of conditions necessary for intelligent life to emerge are likely unique to Earth.
Which is a point I have already conceded. That is why I don't consider it irrational to believe that other intelligent life may not exist. There is no evidence to judge the likeliness of the conditions, so one can choose as they wish until more evidence is available.

Yes, it IS evidence (far from irrefutable evidence, however) of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Unfortunately, the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe was never in question, because anything is possible unless proven impossible. There is little if any evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of the solar system.
It is irrefutable supporting evidence for the possibility of life elsewhere unless you do one of two things. Claim that life on Earth emerged completely independent of events that can happen naturally, or prove that the naturally occurring events that led to the creation of the life supporting conditions on Earth are impossible to happen anywhere else.

As I explained above, supernatural events are not necessary in order to conclude it improbable that intelligent life exists outside of Earth.
And, as I explained above, this was about whether or not this is evidence supporting the possibility, not on how probable you may think it is.

Again, the only evidence needed to support the possibility of anything is the fact that it cannot be proven to be impossible. It would be as irrational to conclude that it is impossible that God exists as it would be to conclude that it is impossible for intelligent life to exist elsewhere. Something cannot be "more possible" than something else (it's either possible or it's impossible). The possibility of either isn't really in question and has already been discussed on this thread.

-Bri
You don't actually believe this nonsense you typed, do you? First, I'm not claiming either are impossible, nor arguing about what is irrational. This is about your claim that it is equally rational to believe in anything as long as it is possible, and I disagree. How rational it is to believe in something that is possible is directly related to the quality of evidence supporting the possibility, among other things, such as what is must be contradicted by believing in it. In the case of life elsewhere in the universe, aside from the "evidence" that we can't prove it impossible, we have evidence that life has occurred at least once and no logical reason to conclude it is impossible to happen more than once. That is empirical evidence supporting the possibility. In the case of God existing, we have the "evidence" that we can't prove it impossible, and that is it. Absolutely nothing else. Therefore, your analogy that it is equally rational to believe God exists as it is to believe life exists elsewhere is wrong.

Bri

9th August 2006, 08:31 AM

Now, if you honestly read those definitions and continue to maintain that there is no basis to say that prayer is by definition superstitious then you are just being intellectually dishonest.

There is certainly a basis for the opinion that prayer is superstitious; however, there is no basis for the claim that prayer is necessarily superstitious by definition. None of the actual dictionary definitions of "superstition" you've posted support your claim that prayer is necessarily superstitious by definition. In fact, none of them even mention prayer.

-Bri

RandFan

9th August 2006, 08:35 AM

Bri,

So I guess you have chosen to be obtuse and obfuscate rather than deal with arguments you find uncomfortable. You have left many questions unanswered.

You refuse to name a superstition, why?
You refuse to answer whether or not it is irrational to believe that raping virgins can cure aids. Bear in mind that we are not addressing the morality of the act. We are simply looking to see if the belief is rational.
You didn't answer the questions, if one person kills another because they believe God wants them to kill people is that reasonable? Is that rational? There are many instances in the Bible where people kill other people in the name of God. Is that rational?
You refuse to acknowledge the wikipedia definition of superstition.
You refuse to acknowledge Robert Ingersoll's definition of superstition.
Will you at least affirm that Skeptics hold that a belief in prayer is superstitious and irrational?
Will you at least affirm that there are scholarly works that state categorically that prayer is a superstition? That prayer is irrational?

RandFan

9th August 2006, 08:40 AM

There is certainly a basis for the opinion that prayer is superstitious; however, there is no basis for the claim that prayer is necessarily superstitious by definition. None of the actual dictionary definitions of "superstition" you've posted support your claim that prayer is necessarily superstitious by definition. In fact, none of them even mention prayer.(emphasis mine) This is disengenous or it is ignorant.

By this logic the dictionary must list EVERY mammal because not doing so renders any animal that otherwise fits the defintion not a mammal by defintion.

Your argument, quite simply, is demonstrably fallacious. To be something by defnition it must simply meet the defintion. There is no requirement that the thing be named in the dictionary.

Bri

9th August 2006, 09:27 AM

Which is a point I have already conceded. That is why I don't consider it irrational to believe that other intelligent life may not exist. There is no evidence to judge the likeliness of the conditions, so one can choose as they wish until more evidence is available.

We are in agreement here, although you seem to be conceding your previous point about the "default" position being the only rational position when there is little or no evidence either way.

It is irrefutable supporting evidence for the possibility of life elsewhere unless you do one of two things.

Irrefutable evidence means that the conclusion must necessarily follow from the evidence. In this case, the conclusion follows from other irrefutable evidence (namely that it is not impossible that intelligent life exists elsewhere). It can very easily be argued that the existence of intelligent life here doesn't provide evidence at all of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by not dismissing it entirely as evidence of possibility. However, the existence of intelligent life here is in no way irrefutable evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere.

Claim that life on Earth emerged completely independent of events that can happen naturally, or prove that the naturally occurring events that led to the creation of the life supporting conditions on Earth are impossible to happen anywhere else.

This is exactly my point. It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere because it isn't impossible.

And, as I explained above, this was about whether or not this is evidence supporting the possibility, not on how probable you may think it is.

The possibility is true because there is no irrefutable evidence that it is impossible. Whatever "supporting" evidence there might be of the possibility doesn't make the possibility any more true.

You don't actually believe this nonsense you typed, do you? First, I'm not claiming either are impossible, nor arguing about what is irrational. This is about your claim that it is equally rational to believe in anything as long as it is possible, and I disagree.

That is not even close to my claim. I agree that some things are less likely than others even when both are possible. My claim is (and always has been) that in cases where there is little evidence either for or against something, it is not necessarily irrational to hold an opinion either for or against it.

You admitted that this is true of the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system. However, you claim that there are exceptions for other things for which there is little evidence for or against.

How rational it is to believe in something that is possible is directly related to the quality of evidence supporting the possibility, among other things, such as what is must be contradicted by believing in it.

The quality of evidence supporting the possibility of anything for which there is no proof of impossibility is irrefutable. The evidence is simply that there is no proof of its impossibility. If there is proof of impossibility, it would not be possible. In other words, something is possible if it isn't impossible. That is simply a fact, and cannot be any more or less true than "true."

In the case of life elsewhere in the universe, aside from the "evidence" that we can't prove it impossible, we have evidence that life has occurred at least once and no logical reason to conclude it is impossible to happen more than once. That is empirical evidence supporting the possibility.

Again, its possibility is entirely true without any additional evidence. That there is "empirical evidence supporting the possibility" doesn't make it any more true.

In the case of God existing, we have the "evidence" that we can't prove it impossible, and that is it. Absolutely nothing else.

Therefore, it is true that it is possible. Period. Any additional evidence will not make it any truer.

Therefore, your analogy that it is equally rational to believe God exists as it is to believe life exists elsewhere is wrong.

The possibility of each existing is true. The fact that there is little to no evidence of either actually existing precludes it from being necessarily irrational to have an opinion for or against the existence of either one.

-Bri

Bri

9th August 2006, 09:34 AM

(emphasis mine) This is disengenous or it is ignorant.

By this logic the dictionary must list EVERY mammal because not doing so renders any animal that otherwise fits the defintion not a mammal by defintion.

Your argument, quite simply, is demonstrably fallacious. To be something by defnition it must simply meet the defintion. There is no requirement that the thing be named in the dictionary.

No, something can be shown to be a mammal if it can be shown to fit all of the characteristics of being a mammal. Something can be shown to be a superstition if it can be shown to fit all of the characteristics of being a superstition. Something can be shown to be evil if it can be shown to fit all of the characteristics of being evil.

The fact that two of these (superstition and evil) are not entirely objective terms doesn't mean that the dictionary must list all mammals (an objective term) in order to show that something is a mammal by definition. It does, however, mean that you cannot show something to be superstition or evil by definition.

-Bri

RandFan

9th August 2006, 09:39 AM

The fact that two of these (superstition and evil) are not entirely objective terms doesn't mean that the dictionary must list all mammals (an objective term) in order to show that something is a mammal by definition. It does, however, mean that you cannot show something to be superstition or evil by definition. (emphasis mine) That's just silly. By this logic there are no superstitions since A.) the dictionary doesn't list superstitions and B.) there is nothing that can be shown to be superstition by definition. Have you contacted the various dictionaries?

RandFan

9th August 2006, 09:51 AM

Bri

9th August 2006, 09:51 AM

4. You refuse to acknowledge the wikipedia definition of superstition.
5. You refuse to acknowledge Robert Ingersoll's definition of superstition.
6. Will you at least affirm that Skeptics hold that a belief in prayer is superstitious and irrational?
7. Will you at least affirm that there are scholarly works that state categorically that prayer is a superstition? That prayer is irrational?[/LIST]

6. Most skeptics (myself included) agree that there is no clear evidence of a connection between prayers and the events that they are believed to affect. However, I hope that a skeptic wouldn't hold it to be a fact that all belief in prayer is necessarily superstitious or irrational.

4, 5, and 7. I have seen no scholarly works that state categorically (being without exception or qualification; absolute) that prayer is a superstition. This would include the ones you've posted (if we can call them scholarly works) -- all of them were clearly opinion or listed qualifications.

Your other questions have already been addressed previously.

-Bri

Bri

9th August 2006, 09:53 AM

(emphasis mine) That's just silly. By this logic there are no superstitions since A.) the dictionary doesn't list superstitions and B.) there is nothing that can be shown to be superstition by definition. Have you contacted the various dictionaries?

Already addressed in response to a previous (nearly identical) post.

-Bri

RandFan

9th August 2006, 10:08 AM

6. Most skeptics (myself included) agree that there is no clear evidence of a connection between prayers and the events that they are believed to affect... Absent that then by your own concession the lack of a connection is irrational.

However, I hope that a skeptic wouldn't hold it to be a fact that all belief in prayer is necessarily superstitious or irrational. We have agreed that we are only talking about prayer that influences events.

4, 5, and 7. I have seen no scholarly works that state categorically (being without exception or qualification; absolute) that prayer is a superstition. This would include the ones you've posted (if we can call them scholarly works) -- all of them were clearly opinion or listed qualifications. I disagree. No exceptions or qualifications were given, can you show them to me?

Your other questions have already been addressed previously.More evasion and obfuscation.

Fact: We don't know if you agree or not that a belief that raping virgins to cure aids is irrational.

Fact: We don't know if you agree or not that a belief that killing in the name of God is irrational.

Fact: You have never named what you believed would meet the definition of superstition.

These are significant questions. If they make you fell uncomfortable then don't answer them but stating that you have "addressed" them is disingenuous.

I less than three logic

9th August 2006, 10:19 AM

We are in agreement here, although you seem to be conceding your previous point about the "default" position being the only rational position when there is little or no evidence either way.
No, my point before was when there was "no" evidence, not little evidence.

Irrefutable evidence means that the conclusion must necessarily follow from the evidence. In this case, the conclusion follows from other irrefutable evidence (namely that it is not impossible that intelligent life exists elsewhere). It can very easily be argued that the existence of intelligent life here doesn't provide evidence at all of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by not dismissing it entirely as evidence of possibility. However, the existence of intelligent life here is in no way irrefutable evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere.
If it is easy to argue, please present your argument. The conclusion that the possibility exists must necessarily follow from the evidence unless you do one of the two things I mentioned before.

This is exactly my point.
Glad you agree, because your previous paragraph didn't seem to.

It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere because it isn't impossible.
Yes, but in this case we have more evidence to show it is possible than simple word games. Where in the case of God we only have definitions that make the claim impossible to falsify as the only "evidence" supporting the possibility. I don't consider that evidence at all.

The possibility is true because there is no irrefutable evidence that it is impossible. Whatever "supporting" evidence there might be of the possibility doesn't make the possibility any more true.
Who said anything about "true"? I'm talking about whether it is more or less rational to believe in the claim.

That is not even close to my claim. I agree that some things are less likely than others even when both are possible. My claim is (and always has been) that in cases where there is little evidence either for or against something, it is not necessarily irrational to hold an opinion either for or against it.
Agreed, when there is little evidence. Not so when there is no evidence. In the case of life existing elsewhere, we have little evidence to support the possibility. In the case of God, we have no evidence. Only word games.

You admitted that this is true of the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system. However, you claim that there are exceptions for other things for which there is little evidence for or against.
No, my exceptions are for cases where there is no evidence.

The quality of evidence supporting the possibility of anything for which there is no proof of impossibility is irrefutable. The evidence is simply that there is no proof of its impossibility. If there is proof of impossibility, it would not be possible. In other words, something is possible if it isn't impossible. That is simply a fact, and cannot be any more or less true than "true."
There's that true word again. We're talking about how rational the opinion is, not whether or not it turns out to be true. Empirical evidence is better quality than poor definitions. Making one opinion more rational to hold than the other.

Again, its possibility is entirely true without any additional evidence. That there is "empirical evidence supporting the possibility" doesn't make it any more true.

Therefore, it is true that it is possible. Period. Any additional evidence will not make it any truer.
Rational.

True.

R, A

T, R

...?:boggled:

The possibility of each existing is true. The fact that there is little to no evidence of either actually existing precludes it from being necessarily irrational to have an opinion for or against the existence of either one.

-Bri
There is a world of difference between little evidence and no evidence. Now, I ask once again, please show me some evidence to support the possibility that God exists other then the inability to falsify the claim.

RandFan

9th August 2006, 10:19 AM

Already addressed in response to a previous (nearly identical) post.Have you? Have you made it clear whether you even believe the word superstition has any meaning? I guess that if you are trying to say that what is superstitious is a personal judgment that can't be objectively assessed then I would have to say that is complete and utter BS.

Belief doesn't make the irrational rational.
To demonstrate that a belief is not superstition the person who holds the belief would have to demonstrate causal link.
Absent a causal link the belief is, by definition, superstitious.
For many this is fine. The link is taken on faith. They don't need to prove a link they only need faith. Again, fine but reasonable people must agree that absent a causal link and with evidence to the contrary the belief is superstitious.

Katana

9th August 2006, 10:36 AM

Let's see what the church has to say. Shall we?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The source of superstition is, in the first place, subjective. Ignorance of natural causes leads to the belief that certain striking phenomena express the will or the anger of some invisible overruling power, and the objects in which such phenomena appear are forthwith deified, as, e.g. in Nature-worship. Conversely, many superstitious practices are due to an exaggerated notion or a false interpretation of natural events, so that effects are sought which are beyond the efficiency of physical causes. Curiosity also with regard to things that are hidden or are still in the future plays a considerable part, e.g. in the various kinds of divination. But the chief source of superstition is pointed out in Scripture: "All men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is, neither by attending to the works have acknowledged who was the workman: but have imagined either the fire, or the wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the great water, or the sun and moon, to be the gods that rule the world" (Wisdom 13:1-2). It is to this ignorance of the true God, coupled with an inordinate veneration for human excellence and the love of artistic representations appealing to the senses, that St. Thomas ascribes the origin of idolatry. While these are dispositive causes, the consummative cause, he adds, was the influence of demons who offered themselves as objects of worship to erring men, giving answers through idols and doing things which to men seemed marvellous (II-II:94:4).

These causes explain the origin and spread of superstition in the pagan world. They were to a large extent eliminated by the preaching of Christianity; but so deep-rooted was the tendency to which they gave rise that many of the ancient practices survived, especially among peoples just emerging from barbarism. It was only by degrees, through the legislation of the Church and the advance of scientific knowledge, that the earlier forms of superstition were eradicated. But the tendency itself has not wholly disappeared.
So Catholicism is the current form of superstition?

The human mind, by a natural impulse, tends to worship something, and if it is convinced that Agnosticism is true and that God is unknowable, it will, sooner or later, devise other objects of worship.
(my bold)

So superstition is belief in anything besides what the Catholic church calls the true God? But, if humans do not believe in that God, they will sooner or later believe in or worship something. What is there to suggest that the same impulse, the need to believe in something, didn't lead to the creation of Christianity's God and all of the attendant lore?

Given that possibility (since the inability to prove something to be impossible seems the basis of certain arguments) why is the belief in him any less superstitious than believing in the power of a pile of bones to predict the future or that a rabbit's foot will bring you luck?